Research

Grounded in Research           

Our earliest research centered primarily on generating evidence regarding the GRAD’s reliability and validity. The Ohio State researchers involved in these efforts were dedicated to producing work that would allow judges, magistrates, lawyers, probation officers, and service providers to use the assessment results with confidence.  These initial studies produced an important bottom line. To wit, the GRAD items measured what they were supposed to measure, and they did so in consistent fashion. With those assurances, our next steps focused on how the resulting information could presage the need for direct services that are related to the global risks and needs measured by this assessment tool.

Studies using the GRAD have focused a great deal of attention on the mental health domain, in large part because the research team was well aware of the emerging gap in services between the increased caseloads on the juvenile docket and the social support system connected to many of these courts. In essence, we were witnessing the transformation of the juvenile court into a “mental health emergency room” in many jurisdictions we worked with over the last decade. One of the first studies reported on the comparability between scores on the GRAD mental health domain and other more well-established measures of psychological symptoms, including the Johns Hopkins Brief Symptom Inventory. Another early study reported that GRAD scores in each of its domains could be used to predict the level of mental health care that court-involved adolescents received as part of their case plan. Together, these studies built confidence in the belief that the GRAD could serve as a quick screen to identify mental health-oriented issues and facilitate the referral of youth to the most appropriate intervention.

Later studies began to pay attention to the significant gender differences that were displayed by court-involved females and males. For instance, in one study of youth assessed at a juvenile court detention facility, girls reported higher risks than boys for problems in expected areas such as family, mental health concerns, exposure to traumatic events, and sexually promiscuous behavior.  But, unexpectedly, these girls also scored significantly higher in areas typically thought of as “male” factors leading to criminal involvement, including lack of self-responsibility and delinquent friendships.  Also in this study, girls and boys differed in terms of the type of offense that brought them to the attention of the courts.  Girls were more likely to be detained because of domestic violence charges, for instance, whereas boys were more likely to be charged with property crimes and violent street crime. Hence, these girls were being detained for problems that surrounded the home environment, whereas boys were detained for the problems that they created for strangers.

Studies utilizing the GRAD also have begun to pay attention to race/ethnicity issues in combination with gender, especially when the focus is on family-related factors. In a study of court-involved youth coming to the attention of four different juvenile courts in Ohio, it was reported that girls in general were exposed to significantly greater problems in their homes than are boys, and that African American females in particular reported the highest levels of family-related difficulties. This study also reported that, when family problems were at lower levels, boys reported significantly more involvement in illegal behavior than will girls.  However, the presence of more numerous family problems coincided with girls reporting relatively equal numbers of crimes with boys.  Hence, family factors were associated with girls “catching up” to the boys in terms of criminal behavior.

Published Research Articles to Date Using the GRAD

Gavazzi, S. M., Yarcheck, C. M., & Chesney-Lind, M. (2006). Global Risk Indicators and the Role of Gender in a Juvenile Detention Sample. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33, 597-612.

Gavazzi, S. M. (2006). Gender, Ethnicity and the Family Environment: Contributions to Assessment Efforts within the Realm of Juvenile Justice. Family Relations, 55, 190-199.

Gavazzi, S. M., Yarcheck, C. M., & Lim, J. Y. (2005). Ethnicity, gender, and global risk indicators in the lives of status offenders coming to the attention of the juvenile court. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 49, 696-710.

Gavazzi, S. M., & Lim, J. Y. (2003). Advances in measurement of global risk indicators in lives of court-involved youth: brief evidence for concurrent validity. Psychological Reports, 93, 750-752.

Gavazzi, S. M., Lim, J. Y., Yarcheck, C. M., & Eyre, E. L. (2003). A brief report regarding predictive validity evidence of global risk indicators in the lives of court-involved youth. Psychological Reports, 93, 1239-1242.

Gavazzi, S. M., Slade, D., Buettner, C. K., Partridge, C., Yarcheck, C. M., & Andrews, D.W. (2003). Toward conceptual development and empirical measurement of global risk indicators in the lives of court-involved youth. Psychological Reports, 92, 599-615.

Ongoing Research and Development           

Our research team utilizes a constantly refreshed database (currently containing over 8,000 youth and families that have been assessed through the use of the GRAD information system) to continue to document the psychometric properties of the GRAD and the applicability of its results. One recently completed study (under review) used a sample of first-time offenders in order to examine the degree to which the factors assessed by the GRAD could be used to predict recidivistic activity. Interestingly, three factors – family, educational/vocational issues, and accountability – were significantly associated with recidivistic behavior in this generally low-risk sample, supporting the use of GRAD data in correctly identifying first time offenders who have the greatest and least likelihood for future offending behavior.

Another recently completed study (also under review) examined the GRAD’s utility in predicting recidivistic activity within a sample of youth who were detained in a juvenile facility for more serious offenses. In addition to the replication of results regarding educational issues and recidivism, the research team also is able to report on findings that discuss how neighborhood income, neighborhood racial mix, ethnicity and gender are able differentiate re-offenders from non re-offenders.  

In the midst of these empirical efforts to better understand the link between GRAD factors and recidivistic activity, one recently launched study worth mentioning here is an attempt to couple information about risks and needs with information about what happens from the time of first arrest onward. This more comprehensive data collection, including the tracking of both type and amounts of services delivered, has been launched in large part because it is believed that the key to understanding recidivistic activity is the discernment of what is (and what is not) done by, for, and with a youth and their family following his or her arrest. And therein lies the “assessment drives intervention” potential of the GRAD. In short, reliable and valid assessment of threats to adolescent well-being should guide and direct the case planning process, which in turn should play a major determining role in whether or not a youthful offender will have subsequent contact with the court.

Related Publications on Court-Involved Youth and their Families

Gavazzi, S. M., & Yarcheck, C. M. (2006). Assessing the Global Risks and Needs of Court-Involved Youth. Juvenile Correctional Mental Health Report.