The Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory 2.0 (YLS/CMI 2.0) is a standardized instrument designed to help professionals assess risk and treatment needs in juvenile offenders. The instrument is primarily used to assist in developing intervention and treatment plans in probation and custody settings, but it is also useful in making decisions regarding pretrial diversion and levels of security and supervision in institutional and community settings. The measure has also proved useful in case planning and management with high-risk students in school settings. The instrument is appropriate for use by probation officers, youth workers, court workers, psychologists, and other professionals working in juvenile justice and other social service, mental health, and educational settings. This article presents the history, format, and scoring of the YLC/CMI 2.0, as well as examines its validity and offers user cautions.
History
The instrument was developed as the youth version of the Level of Service Inventory, an established and widely used risk/need instrument designed for assessing adult offenders. The original version of the instrument was published in 2002, and the revision, YLS/CMI 2.0, was published in 2010. The risk/needs assessment sections of the two instruments are identical, insuring that earlier psychometric research is relevant to the later version.
YLS/CMI 2.0 is based on the Risk-NeedResponsivity model, a well-researched model designed to guide interventions in judicial and correctional systems. It is relevant to the treatment of those involved in the systems and those at risk of entering those systems. One principle of that model is that interventions with the offender should be guided by standardized and structured assessments of Risk-Need- Responsivity factors and conditions. Risk factors constitute conditions that place the youth at risk of initiating criminal activity or continuing criminal activity (e.g., a history of conduct disorder, drug addiction, criminal associates). Need factors are dynamic risk factors that can be changed and, if changed, reduce the chances of antisocial behaviors. Drug use and criminal associates are examples of risk factors that can be altered and, if so, may reduce risk level. Responsivity factors are characteristics of the youth or his or her circumstances that, while not directly related to criminal activity, represent factors that should be taken into account in case planning and management (e.g., mental illness in a parent, depression in the youth, economic problems in the family). Responsivity factors also include strength or protective factors important in case planning (e.g., a positive and cooperative parent or teacher, high level of maturity in the youth, an interest in sports and other recreational activities).
Format
The YLS/CMI 2.0 is composed of six parts:
Part I: Assessment of Risk and Needs is comprised of 42 items. These items are drawn from the empirical literature on factors associated with youthful criminal activity. Items are divided into eight categories: Prior and Current Offenses/Dispositions, Family Circumstances/Parenting, Education/Employment, Peer Relations, Substance Abuse, Leisure/Recreation, Personality/Behavior, and Attitudes/Orientation. The section is in the form of a checklist where the assessor indicates the presence or absence of the factor. Seven of the eight categories also include an opportunity to indicate strength in the area. The assessor can, for example, indicate the presence of particular strength in the family (e.g., cooperative and helpful father). Similarly, it would be possible to indicate strength under the Attitudes/Orientation section (e.g., strong prosocial attitudes and values).
Part II: Summary of Risk and Needs provides an opportunity to develop a profile of the youth’s level of risk/needs within the eight categories and a total risk/need score. Risk/needs ranges are then provided for the total score. Four ranges are identified: low, moderate, high, and very high. Separate ranges are provided for male and female youth and for community and custodial samples. These actuarial scores are based on empirical data.
Part III: Assessment of Other Needs and Special Considerations provides an opportunity to note responsivity and other considerations that might be relevant to case planning. Two groups of factors are included: The first comprises aspects relating to the family (e.g., chronic history of offending in the family, marital conflict between parents, cultural/ ethnic issues). The second group includes conditions relating to the youth (e.g., anxiety, depression, health problems, learning disability). Again, the items represent conditions normally not directly related to the criminal activity (although there are circumstances where they may be related), but factors that should be taken into account in case planning.
Part IV: Final Risk/Need Level and Professional Override represents an opportunity for the assessor to override the risk/needs level indicated by the total score in Part IV. The assessor might indicate, for example, that the moderate risk/needs level is too low and raise the estimate to high, or, on the other hand, the assessor might indicate that the high rating is too high and lower the estimate to moderate or low. The revision should be based on the assessor’s perception that factors not represented in Part I may have a bearing on the youth’s risk/needs level. The assessor is asked to provide the reasons for the override. This provision is included to ensure that the final decisions about the youth rest with the responsible professional.
Part V: Program/Placement Decision provides the assessor an opportunity to suggest the appropriate level of security or supervision given a particular level of risk/needs. Separate indications are provided for custodial and community services. Categories range from Administrative/Paper to Maximum Supervision provisions.
Part VI: Case Management Plan includes a format that allows the assessor to develop a case plan reflecting the risk/needs factors identified. The format reflects a number of principles of the Risk-NeedResponsivity model. These include the importance of basing case plans on structured assessments, basing decisions about the intensity of service on the level of risk, focusing on specific criminogenic needs of the youth, and considering responsivity factors (including strengths) in the case plan. Other principles guiding the format include an emphasis on the use of evidence-based interventions and the use of multidimensional interventions to recognize the relations among risk and need factors. The format asks the assessor to identify a set of criminogenic needs that should reflect the major need factors identified in Part I (e.g., association with antisocial peers). Then, a specific goal should be identified (e.g., reduce time spent with antisocial peers after school), followed by a specific intervention (e.g., enroll in afterschool athletic program and work with parent to enforce evening curfew) and a time frame indicating the proposed duration of the intervention. A separate section then allows for the development of case plans for the noncriminogenic needs identified in Part III (e.g., addressing the youth’s depression and anxiety issues).
Scoring
The YLS/CMI 2.0 is designed for use by probation officers, court workers, youth workers, psychologists, and other professionals working in systems and agencies dealing with juvenile offenders or those at risk of offending. Assessors should have some experience working with antisocial youth, while some academic background in child development is also desirable. Assessors using the measure should also be exposed to a formal training program in the use of the measure.
Completion of the YLS/CMI 2.0 is fairly straightforward, but the validity of the scores depends very directly on the collection of information on which the assessment is based. The assessment will normally involve an interview with the offender; a structured interview schedule to assist that interview is available. Interviews with parents or other guardians are important, while information from sources such as teachers, principals, and probation officers is also valuable. File information in the form of police reports, prior criminal record, and prior probation reports should be used where available. It must be noted, however, that access to these sources of information may be limited by ethical guidelines.
Construct Reliability
Considerable reliability and validity research has now been conducted with the YLS/CMI 2.0. (Since Part I of the original version and YLS/CMI 2.0 are identical, research with Part I of the original version can be considered relevant to the revision.) Support for reliability comes through satisfactory levels of coefficient alpha and interrater agreement. The latter research shows that satisfactory levels of agreement across trained raters can be achieved.
A variety of validity research has been conducted with the measure. Construct validity research has shown significant correlations between risk/need scores from YLS/CMI 2.0 and parallel scores from other established measures, including the Psychopathy Checklist–Youth Version, Child Behavior Checklist, and Disruptive Behavior Disorders Rating Scales. Overall scores from those measures are not parallel with total scores from YLS/CMI 2.0, but subscales are comparable and were used in the evaluations.
Predictive and Dynamic Reliability
Predictive validity is of particular importance, reflecting the extent to which scores from the measure actually predict future antisocial behavior. Considerable predictive validity research has been conducted with a variety of outcome measures and in a wide variety of settings. This research has generally yielded results supporting the predictive validity of YLS/CMI 2.0.
Outcome variables used in the predictive validity research include police contacts, arrests, and convictions. This research has focused on both general and violent offending. Other outcome measures include institutional infractions, compliance with probation conditions, and postinstitutional adjustment. Validity has been established for boys and girls, various minority groups, and a wide range of national settings, including the United States, Canada, Australia, Ireland, Singapore, Croatia, Spain, and Scotland.
Dynamic validity has been supported in a number of studies. This research demonstrates that increases in the YLS/CMI 2.0 score over time are associated with increased levels of reoffending, while decreases in those scores are associated with decreased levels of reoffending. This demonstrates that YLS/CMI 2.0 is truly a dynamic instrument.
Because of its demonstrated validity, YLS/ CMI 2.0 has been adopted in a wide variety of agencies and across a wide range of countries. It has generally been well accepted in those settings and regarded by professionals as a useful tool in their case planning and management activities.
Cautions
Several cautions should be observed when using an instrument such as the YLS/CMI 2.0. First, the instrument should only be used by professionals with training in scoring, interpreting, and applying the measure. Second, the instrument should not be used in a rigid way. For example, an overall score from the measure should not be used as the sole basis for a decision about placement on probation or custody. The scores are designed to aid the professional in making a decision, not to dictate a decision. This is one reason for including the professional override section. Third, care should be used to ensure that the measure does not result in unjustified net widening. This would occur where a more serious disposition would be provided because a high number of needs are identified in the assessment without regard to other considerations (e.g., severity of the offense). This highlights the importance of developing policies regarding the role of the risk/needs assessment in the judicial process.
References:
- Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct (5th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
- Hoge, R. D. (2005). Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory. In T. Grisso, G. Vincent, & D. Seagrave (Eds.), Mental health screening and assessment in juvenile justice (pp. 283–294). New York, NY: Guilford.
- Hoge, R. D., & Andrews, D. A. (1996). Assessing the youthful offender: Issues and techniques. New York, NY: Plenum.
- Hoge, R. D., & Andrews, D. A. (2010). Evaluation of risk for violence in juveniles. New York, NY: Oxford. Hoge, R. D., & Andrews, D. A. (2011). Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory 2.0 – User’s manual. North Tonawanda, NY: Multi-Health Systems.