Transcript OYA Recidivism Risk Assessment (ORRA)

Research & Evaluation
Defining Recidivism
 Felony
adjudication (conviction)
within 3 years of release from
closed custody or commitment to
probation.
Defining the Assessments

ORRA: OYA Recidivism Risk Assessment. Identifies the
likelihood a youth will recidivate after release from closed
custody or commitment to probation.

ORRA-V: OYA Recidivism Risk Assessment–Violent.
Identifies the likelihood a youth will VIOLENTLY recidivate
after release from closed custody or commitment to
probation. Recognizes the propensity for violence or
threatening crimes that may result in physical harm.
Why Develop a Risk Assessment

Program evaluation
Placement and treatment decisions
 Parole Decisions
 Sentencing practices

RNA fails to differentiate risk populations
 Poor predictive accuracy

The Data
 15,968
total youth
 Date range of population January 2005 to May 2007
 Four
Youth Populations
 County Probation
 Committed to OYA Probation
 Released from OYA Close Custody Facility
 Released from OYA Close Custody Facility to Supervision
in the adult system
Dozens of Variables were
Considered

Age at first referral

Total prior sex offense referrals

Total prior felony referrals

Total prior theft referrals

Total prior runaway referrals

Total prior property referrals
Dozens of Variables were
Considered (cont.)

Total burglary referrals

Total prior misdemeanor referrals

Total prior robbery referrals

Total prior violation referrals

Total prior dependency referrals

Total prior harassment referrals
Variables contributing to the ORRA Scores and
their effects












Prior felony AOD referral (Y/N)
Prior weapon referral (Y/N)
Age
Criminal mischief referral (Y/N)
No. prior misdemeanor referrals
No. prior theft referrals
Adjudicated delinquent (Y/N)
No. prior AOD referrals
Current sex offense (Y/N)
No. prior runaway referrals
Gender (male higher risk)
Interactions – mischief referral by



No. prior misdemeanors
No. prior theft referrals
No runaway referrals
+25.5%
+21.2
+ 4.6
+83.2
+10.3
+ 5.2
+21.6
+11.1
- 39.5
+11.4
+20.4



Flattens out
Increases
Flattens out
So… What exactly
does this mean?
Meet the Twins…
Age 15
Male
3 Runaways
1 Prior Felony
Drug Referral
Interpreting Scores
 Each youth has a score between 0% and
100%
 The score approximates the probability that
the youth will recidivate
○ For example, a youth with a score of 40% has
a 40% probability they will recidivate
○ This also means the youth has a 60%
approximate score that the youth will NOT
recidivate.
Model Accuracy

Overall Accuracy for ORRA = 73%
 Accurate for all subpopulations

Accuracy of 50% suggests poor predictive
accuracy

Accuracy of 100% suggests perfect predictive
accuracy
Comparison of the Four
Populations
Distribution of ORRA Scores by Group
Percent by Group
10
COUNT Y PROBAT ION
DOC
OYA PROBAT ION
YCF
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
ORRA Scores
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Differences in Youth Populations
Predictive Accuracy
Population Group
Entire study population
County probation
OYA probation
Juvenile released from OYA close custody
DOC youth released from OYA close custody
Actual
Expected
Recidivism Recidivism
18.5%
18.5%
16.6%
16.6%
24.2%
24.2%
28.6%
29.1%
23.0%
21.7%
Interpreting Scores
 ORRA and ORRA-V scores can also be
evaluated for a specific population
 The average score for a group of youth
estimates the expected recidivism rate for
the group
Program Evaluation
Actual vs. Expected Recidivism

Calculate risk scores
Providers Serving 30 or more youth from 1/1/2000 to
12/13/2007; 36-Month Recidivism
 Expected (based on
Expected
Rate
Actual Rate
Percent Increase
or Decrease
Provider A
18.8%
13.0%
-31.0%
Provider B
20.3%
16.3%
-19.5%
Provider C
21.9%
17.9%
-18.2%
Provider D
26.8%
22.2%
-17.1%
Provider E
16.5%
14.0%
-15.4%
Provider F
22.4%
19.2%
-14.3%
Determine Relative
increase or decrease
Provider G
27.6%
25.0%
-9.3%
Provider H
14.9%
13.6%
-8.4%
Provider I
30.2%
29.7%
-1.7%
 Facilitates meaningful
Provider J
28.2%
28.0%
-0.7%
comparisons across
providers
Provider K
36.8%
40.4%
9.9%
Provider L
24.5%
27.1%
10.6%
Provider M
26.4%
29.9%
13.2%
Provider N
26.1%
30.0%
14.7%
Provider O
25.3%
37.1%
46.5%
average risk of youth
served)
 Actual (based on
recidivism of youth
served)

Treatment Provider
Things Done and Things
Still to Do

Done -- Test for all OYA youth groups
 Males/Females
 Minorities
 Crime Type

Still to Do -- Make the ORRA dynamic
 Incidence
 Revocations
 Programming
ORRA-V
Used the same dataset
 Used “violent recidivism” – a subset of
recidivism
 Violent recidivism includes murder,
arson…robbery, assault, and burglary

Variables contributing to the ORRA-V Scores and
their effects










Male
Prior weapon referral (Y/N)
No. prior misdemeanor referrals
No. prior felony referrals
Prior felony assault referral (Y/N)
Prior felony theft referrals (Y/N)
Misdemeanor theft referrals (Y/N)
Prior curfew violation (Y/N)
No. prior runaway referrals
Interactions:


Weapons X felony theft
Misdemeanor Referrals X felony
referrals
+178.1%
+ 62.0
+ 13.5
+ 31.3
+ 32.1
+ 36.1
+ 20.1
+ 22.1
+ 8.6
Flattens out
Flattens out
Differences between the ORRA and the ORRA-V
Variable
ORRA
ORRA-V
Male
+ 20
+178%
Weapon offense
+ 21
+ 62
Misdemeanor referrals
+ 10
+ 13
Runaway referrals
+ 11
+ 31
Felony referrals
+
Felony assault referrals
+ 32
Felony theft referrals
+ 36
Misdemeanor theft referrals
+ 20
Curfew violation
+ 22
Felony AOD referral
+ 26
Age
+
Mischief referral
+ 83
Number theft referrals
+
Prior adjudication
+ 22
Number AOD referrals
+ 11
Current sex offense
- 40
5
5
9
OVIRA and ONIRA

OVIRA measures the likelihood a youth
will engage in a violent act in the first six
months of closed custody

ONIRA measures the likelihood a youth
will engage in numerous non-violent
incidents in the first six months of closed
custody
Data for OVIRA and ONIRA
Youth admitted to OYA between
November 2007 and December 2009
 N = 1,258
 90% male and 10% female
 27% property crime, 25% sexual
offenses, and 9% robbery
 64% YCF, 11% DOC, and 11% revoked

Variables considered for OVIRA
and ONIRA
ORRA and ORRA-V
 RNA data – aggression, drugs/alcohol,
mental health, employment,
relationships, attitudes, etc.
 Gender
 Age
 Sexual offender
 Special education and learning disability
 Other variables

OVIRA – OYA Violent Incident
Risk Assessment

Violence considered an assault or peer
fight resulting in isolation/segregation

Considered “immediately threatening to
life, health, or facility safety, security, or
good order.”
ONIRA – OYA Nuisance Incident
Risk Assessment

Considered four or more non-violent
incidents in the first months of closed
custody
Variables contributing to OVIRA
and ONIRA scores
Variable
OVIRA
ONIRA
Age at admission
-20%
- 27%
Male
-43
SED
+55
+ 139
Sex offender
-45
- 49
Mental health protective
-9
Full relationship risk
+29
Belief in
fighting/aggression
+49
RNA prescreen social
score
- 11
Mental health risk
+ 28
Aggression protective
- 22
Parental
authority/control
+ 50
ORRA
ORRA-V
+1224 (HR=13.2)
- 95 (HR=.05)
Typologies
Typologies
C
E
A
D
Type A Description
Highest need population
AOD use is high both current and historical
Poor relationships and likely lack relationship skills
 Highest on aggression and attitude issues
 History of Mental Health = ADD/ADHD or mental health
diagnosis – recommend analysis of RNA items 15.5 and
15.6 to differentiate ADD/ADHD versus Formal MH
Diagnosis
 Education issues are prominent – recommend analysis of
RNA item 3.1 for potential responsivity issues
 3.1 = Special Education or Formal Diagnosis of Special
Education Need (LD, SED, MRDD Indicators)



Treatment Recommendation










Estimated to require longest dosage of treatment (e.g.,
12-18 months)
Group may require more stabilization than other groups
due to co-occurring mental health and learning concerns
AOD Treatment (longer in duration due to persistency)
MH treatment with QMHP
Educational intervention
Social Skills/Relationship Skills development (intensive)
Engagement in prosocial activities that can foster
protective factors
Potential family therapy component
Aggression Replacement Training (intensive)
Cognitive Behavioral program to address thinking
Type E Description
66% of this cluster is SO
Highest on protective factors
Low need for MH = ADD/ADHD or mental health diagnosis –
recommend analysis of RNA items 15.5 and 15.6 to
differentiate ADD/ADHD versus Formal MH Diagnosis
Education issues are low – recommend analysis of RNA item
3.1 for potential responsivity issues
 3.1 = Special Education or Formal Diagnosis of Special
Education Need (LD, SED, MRDD Indicators)
Treatment Recommendations
(Type E)
Sex Offender Treatment when appropriate
(Abbreviated Kaufman or general cognitive
behavioral treatment)
Capitalize on whatever activities youth engaged
in prior to coming as leverage for treatment
engagement
Seek opportunities for continued engagement
Optimal Length of Stay

Calculated length of stay
in months

Plotted LOS against
recidivism for the overall
sample

On average, providers
reduce recidivism by
approximately 3% per
month of supervision

But, there may be a
window of time where
providers are most
effective
Program Evaluation Continuum
Summary







ORRA
ORRA-V
OVIRA
ONIRA
Typology (being completed)
Optimum dose (next project)
Program continuum (being developed)







LOS report
Recidivism report
Timing study for JJPOs
Revocation (being completed)
Culture climate survey (data collection completed)
Staff-management/leadership survey (data collection now)
PREA – identifying vulnerable youth (surveyed thru October)
Close Custody Populations
Making comparisons while controlling for risk
Comparing Actual vs Expected* 36-Month Recidivism Rates by ORRA Risk Level and Status**
All Youth Released from OYA or DOC from 10/1/2003 - 6/30/2007 (N = 2258)
YCF
DOC
Returned
ORRA Risk Level n Actual Expected % Difference n Actual Expected % Difference n Actual Expected % Difference
Low
419 11.7%
9.6%
21.9% 124 10.5%
9.3%
12.9% 22 22.7%
10.4%
118.3%
Moderate
428 21.3%
18.4%
15.8% 106 19.8%
17.5%
13.1% 30 16.7%
18.0%
-7.2%
Moderate-High 484 39.9%
31.5%
26.7% 56 26.8%
30.4%
-11.8% 24 45.8%
29.8%
53.7%
High
477 51.6%
56.5%
-8.7% 55 43.6%
53.7%
-18.8% 33 39.4%
58.0%
-32.1%
Total
1808 32.0%
29.9%
7.0% 341 21.4%
22.5%
-4.9% 109 31.2%
31.2%
0.0%
*Expected rates are mean ORRA scores
**Status includes youth committed to YCF, youth committed to DOC that were under the custody of OYA, youth committed to
DOC that were under the custody of OYA but returned to DOC prior to release.
Why

Problems with the RNA
 Not valid for OYA females
 Approximately 85% of the youth in Close
Custody were High Risk – little practical
information
 The Area Under the Curve (AUC) was .56

DOC had the solution
 Methodology for developing risk tool based
on local data
 The AUC for their risk tool was .78
How

Methodology
 Subjects
○ N = 28,431 dispositions (19,309 unique youth)
○ Qualifying events occurred between 1/1/2005
and 5/14/2010
○ Youth qualified if they were:




Placed on county probation
Committed to OYA probation
Released from an OYA close custody facility
Release from OYA close custody to supervision in
the adult system
What’s Next
 ONIRA:
OYA Nuisance Incident
Risk Assessment
 OVIRA:
OYA Violent Incident
Risk Assessment
How

Methodology continued
 Omitted disposition records of youth:
○ Supervised under interstate compact
○ Returned to DOC to complete their sentences
in adult institutions
○ Committed to OYA or county probation who
were subsequently committed to an OYA YCF
without recidivating
 Randomly selected one disposition per
youth
 Final dataset: N = 15,986
How

Methodology continued
 Dependent (Outcome) Variable
○ Recidivism event: OYA official recidivism
measure
 Felony Adjudication or Conviction
 Disposition of formal supervision
○ Groups
○ Tracking Dates
○ Tracking Periods: 12-, 24-, 36-, 48-Month
How

Methodology continued
 Independent Variables
○ Over 50 starting variables
○ Bootstrap Re-sampling
 Run 1000 randomly sampled logistic regressions for
each tracking period
 Lists the proportion of time each variable is
significantly related to the outcome variable
 Selected the top 30% of the variables to develop the
model
○ Run stepwise Logistic Regression for each
tracking period
How

Methodology continued
 Developing the Model
○ Run stepwise Logistic Regression for each
tracking period
○ Determine the concordance rate for each
model
○ Test for interactions
○ Run stepwise Logistic Regression for each
tracking period including significant interaction
variables
How

Methodology continued
 Selecting and refining the final model
○ 36-Month tracking period had the highest
concordance rate (.73) and included
 12 predictor variables
 3 interaction terms
How

Results
 Model Accuracy:
○ AUC = .72
○ Estimates Actual Recidivism
Population Group
Entire study population
County probation
OYA probation
Juvenile released from OYA close custody
DOC youth released from OYA close custody
Actual
Expected
Recidivism Recidivism
18.5%
18.5%
16.6%
16.6%
24.2%
24.2%
28.6%
29.1%
23.0%
21.7%
How

The Model
PREDICTOR VARIABLES
Prior felony drug or alcohol referral
Prior weapon offense referral
Age at start tracking
Prior criminal mischief referral
Total prior misdemeanor referrals
Total prior theft referrals
Prior delinquency adjudication
Total prior drug or alcohol referrals
Current sex offense disposition
Total prior runaway referrals
Total prior felony referrals
Male
Interaction: prior criminal mischief referral & total
prior misdemeanor referrals
VALUES
No = 0, Yes = 1
No = 0, Yes = 1
Age at probation start or release to
community from close custody
No = 0, Yes = 1
Sum (maximum = 20)
Sum (no maximum)
No = 0, Yes = 1
Sum (no maximum)
No = 0, Yes = 1
Sum (maximum = 20)
Sum (maximum = 6)
Female = 0, Male = 1
Product of the two variable terms specified
ODDS
RATIO
1.255
1.212
1.046
1.832
1.103
1.052
1.216
1.111
0.605
1.114
1.204
2.628
0.897
Interaction: prior criminal mischief referral & total
prior theft referrals
Product of the two variable terms specified
1.108
Interaction: prior criminal mischief referral & total
prior runaway referrals
Product of the two variable terms specified
0.935
What for

Interpreting ORRA Scores
 Each youth get a score between 0 and 1
 The score represents the probability that the
youth will recidivate
○ For example, a youth with a score of .42 has a
42% probability they will recidivate
 The average score for a group of youth
estimates the expected recidivism rate for
the group
○ For example, the average ORRA score for
females on OYA probation was 13.1 and the
actual recidivism rate was 13.0.
What for

ORRA has multiple uses
 Placement and treatment decisions
 Parole decisions
 Program evaluations
 Sentencing practices
 Foundation for future improvement in risk
assessment
36 Month Recidivism Rates and Expected Reicidivism Rates by County for All Youth
Committed to OYA YCF and Released from OYA Close Custody to Community Settings from
1/1/2000 through 6/30/2007
What for
Committing
County
•Making comparisons
while controlling for
risk
RECIDIVATED IN 36
MONTHS
No
Total
Number of
Youth
Released
Yes
Baker
15
12
27
Benton
16
13
29
Clackamas
184
87
271
Clatsop
41
17
58
Columbia
46
29
75
Coos
65
28
93
Crook
18
7
25
Curry
22
10
32
Deschutes
34
29
63
Douglas
62
24
86
Gilliam
1
0
1
Grant
1
3
4
Harney
7
1
8
Hood River
6
4
10
130
67
197
Jefferson
15
2
17
Josephine
35
26
61
Klamath
40
18
58
Lake
9
3
12
Lane
193
132
325
Lincoln
70
26
96
Linn
84
38
122
Malheur
34
19
53
Marion
181
97
278
Morrow
10
4
14
284
163
447
43
24
67
Sherman
3
0
3
Tillamook
17
10
27
Umatilla
50
27
77
Union
11
11
22
3
1
4
16
7
23
191
112
303
1
1
2
57
28
85
1995
1080
3075
Jackson
Multnomah
Polk
Wallowa
Wasco
Washington
Wheeler
Yamhill
Total
Percent
Actual
Expected
Difference
Recidivism Recidivism
than
Rate
Rate
Expected
44.4%
44.8%
32.1%
29.3%
38.7%
30.1%
28.0%
31.3%
46.0%
27.9%
0.0%
75.0%
12.5%
40.0%
34.0%
11.8%
42.6%
31.0%
25.0%
40.6%
27.1%
31.1%
35.8%
34.9%
28.6%
36.5%
35.8%
0.0%
37.0%
35.1%
50.0%
25.0%
30.4%
37.0%
50.0%
32.9%
35.1%
35.6%
39.5%
23.2%
26.1%
25.3%
21.5%
22.8%
26.2%
39.1%
35.1%
14.6%
26.8%
27.4%
21.7%
26.6%
23.8%
30.3%
27.9%
28.9%
32.3%
26.2%
23.7%
35.9%
28.9%
33.3%
34.0%
26.6%
12.3%
34.1%
34.3%
30.8%
32.4%
31.4%
31.1%
15.5%
28.3%
29.6%
24.7%
13.6%
38.6%
12.3%
53.0%
39.9%
22.9%
19.2%
17.6%
-20.4%
-100.0%
179.7%
-54.5%
84.1%
27.9%
-50.6%
40.6%
11.2%
-13.5%
25.9%
3.5%
31.5%
0.0%
20.9%
-14.3%
7.3%
34.5%
-100.0%
8.5%
2.2%
62.5%
-22.9%
-3.1%
18.9%
222.3%
16.4%
18.8%
36 Month Recidivism Rates and Expected Reicidivism Rates by County for All Youth
Committed to OYA Probation from 1/1/2000 through 6/30/2007
What for
•Making comparisons
while controlling for
risk
Committing
County
RECIDIVATED IN 36
MONTHS
No
Total
Number of
Youth
Released
Yes
Baker
17
4
21
Benton
29
9
38
Clackamas
388
103
491
Clatsop
50
14
64
Columbia
42
9
51
120
44
164
Crook
25
7
32
Curry
25
10
35
Deschutes
58
36
94
Douglas
54
14
68
Gilliam
3
0
3
Grant
5
3
8
Harney
1
2
3
14
9
23
192
66
258
Jefferson
23
13
36
Josephine
70
25
95
Klamath
82
31
113
Lake
9
7
16
Lane
278
97
375
91
26
117
131
31
162
49
30
79
Marion
225
108
333
Morrow
13
5
18
186
147
333
49
19
68
Sherman
2
0
2
Tillamook
30
9
39
Umatilla
59
21
80
Union
12
10
22
8
4
12
28
7
35
211
67
278
2
0
2
84
31
115
2665
1018
3683
Coos
Hood River
Jackson
Lincoln
Linn
Malheur
Multnomah
Polk
Wallowa
Wasco
Washington
Wheeler
Yamhill
Total
Percent
Actual
Expected
Difference
Recidivism Recidivism
than
Rate
Rate
Expected
19.0%
23.7%
21.0%
21.9%
17.6%
26.8%
21.9%
28.6%
38.3%
20.6%
0.0%
37.5%
66.7%
39.1%
25.6%
36.1%
26.3%
27.4%
43.8%
25.9%
22.2%
19.1%
38.0%
32.4%
27.8%
44.1%
27.9%
0.0%
23.1%
26.3%
45.5%
33.3%
20.0%
24.1%
0.0%
27.0%
27.6%
25.4%
25.2%
18.3%
22.1%
21.5%
17.6%
22.3%
22.4%
31.9%
29.7%
14.8%
24.1%
32.7%
17.8%
25.1%
24.9%
25.7%
22.3%
24.5%
22.1%
19.6%
21.3%
32.6%
25.9%
26.6%
30.5%
26.9%
9.9%
24.9%
35.5%
22.8%
24.9%
21.8%
24.4%
21.7%
23.7%
24.0%
-25.0%
-6.0%
14.8%
-0.9%
-17.9%
52.2%
-2.0%
27.8%
19.9%
-30.6%
-100.0%
55.3%
103.8%
119.9%
1.9%
44.9%
2.3%
23.2%
78.9%
16.9%
13.2%
-10.1%
16.7%
25.0%
4.5%
44.5%
3.9%
-100.0%
-7.1%
-26.1%
99.1%
33.9%
-8.3%
-1.4%
-100.0%
13.6%
15.0%
What for
•Making comparisons
while controlling for
risk
Comparing Actual vs Expected* 36-Month Recidivism Rates by ORRA Risk Level and Status**
All Youth Released from OYA or DOC from 10/1/2003 - 6/30/2007 (N = 2258)
YCF
DOC
Returned
ORRA Risk Level n Actual Expected % Difference n Actual Expected % Difference n Actual Expected % Difference
Low
419 11.7%
9.6%
21.9% 124 10.5%
9.3%
12.9% 22 22.7%
10.4%
118.3%
Moderate
428 21.3%
18.4%
15.8% 106 19.8%
17.5%
13.1% 30 16.7%
18.0%
-7.2%
Moderate-High 484 39.9%
31.5%
26.7% 56 26.8%
30.4%
-11.8% 24 45.8%
29.8%
53.7%
High
477 51.6%
56.5%
-8.7% 55 43.6%
53.7%
-18.8% 33 39.4%
58.0%
-32.1%
Total
1808 32.0%
29.9%
7.0% 341 21.4%
22.5%
-4.9% 109 31.2%
31.2%
0.0%
*Expected rates are mean ORRA scores
**Status includes youth committed to YCF, youth committed to DOC that were under the custody of OYA, youth committed to
DOC that were under the custody of OYA but returned to DOC prior to release.
Other risk equations
ORRA+
 ORRA-V
 Risk of being involved in a violent
incident in the first year in OYA close
custody

Implementing ORRA Scores…An Example

Used ORRA Scores in Evaluating the
Effectiveness of Residential Programs
 Is the actual recidivism rate different than
the predicted recidivism rate?
 Is there an optimal length of stay?
 With which youth is a program most
effective?

All youth in residential programs from
2000 to 2007
 Used official OYA definition for recidivism
Actual vs. Expected
Recidivism


Calculated risk scores
 Expected (based on
average risk of youth
served)
 Actual (based on
recidivism of youth
served)
Determined Relative
increase or decrease
 Facilitates meaningful
comparisons across
providers
Providers Serving 30 or more youth from 1/1/2000 to
11/1/2007; 36-Month Recidivism
Treatment Provider
Youth Expecte
Served d Rate
Actual
Rate
Percent
Increase or
Decrease
A
80
14.7
13.8
-6.1%
B
125
14.0
13.6
-2.9%
C
345
27.4
30.4
10.9%
D
287
25.8
29.3
13.6%
E
211
32.0
37.4
16.9%
F
306
37.0
44.1
19.2%
G
490
31.1
37.1
19.3%
H
141
15.4
18.4
19.5%
I
641
21.9
26.2
19.6%
J
141
32.9
39.7
20.7%
K
211
19.6
23.7
20.9%
L
184
21.9
26.6
21.5%
M
121
25.0
33.9
35.6%
N
117
28.6
39.3
37.4%
O
480
25.2
35.2
39.7%
Next step? Right Youth…Right
Program

In depth analysis about who programs
are most effective with
 Potential variables include sex, age, offense
type

In addition to understanding which youth
are most effectively served by a specific
program, this analysis may identify gaps
and determine which youth are not
served well by current provider
resources
Questions

Contact Research:
 Lance Schnacker
(503) 378-6551
○ [email protected]
 Paul Bellatty
○ [email protected]
Current OYA Population
Average ORRA Score by Crime Type: All Current Juvenile Commitment as of July
18, 2011
0.500
0.450
OYA Probation
YCF
0.400
Average ORRA Score
0.350
0.300
0.250
0.200
0.150
0.100
0.050
0.000
Substance Related
PropertyCriminal Other
Public OrderWeapons
Person to Person
Robbery
Arson Sex Offense
Overall
Why

Problems with the RNA
 Not valid for OYA females
 Approximately 85% of the youth in Close
Custody were High Risk – little practical
information
 The Area Under the Curve (AUC) was .56

DOC had the solution
 Methodology for developing risk tool based
on local data
 The AUC for their risk tool was .78
How

Methodology
 Subjects
○ N = 28,431 dispositions (19,309 unique youth)
○ Qualifying events occurred between 1/1/2005
and 5/14/2010
○ Youth qualified if they were:




Placed on county probation
Committed to OYA probation
Released from an OYA close custody facility
Release from OYA close custody to supervision in
the adult system
How

Methodology continued
 Omitted disposition records of youth:
○ Supervised under interstate compact
○ Returned to DOC to complete their sentences
in adult institutions
○ Committed to OYA or county probation who
were subsequently committed to an OYA YCF
without recidivating
 Randomly selected one disposition per
youth
 Final dataset: N = 15,986
How

Methodology continued
 Dependent (Outcome) Variable
○ Recidivism event: OYA official recidivism
measure
 Felony Adjudication or Conviction
 Disposition of formal supervision
○ Groups
○ Tracking Dates
○ Tracking Periods: 12-, 24-, 36-, 48-Month