Table 1
Results from a content analysis of provider interview data.
| Themes | Codes | Network Agencies (n = 3) | Case Management (n = 5) | Street Outreach Team (n = 1) | Total Sample (n = 9) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Providers lack a shared understanding about how to use the tool | Tool administered differentially based on provider capacity and personal preferences | 3 | 5 | 1 | 9 |
| Differences in administration style vary by staff member and youth characteristics | 2 | 4 | 1 | 7 | |
| Lack of uniformity for information collection procedures | 3 | 4 | 0 | 7 | |
| Calls to referral source (i.e., parents/schools) to obtain more information if necessary | 3 | 2 | 0 | 5 | |
| Assessment completed after decision-making/case planning | 2 | 2 | 0 | 4 | |
| Helpful when one designated person completes all initial risk assessments | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | |
| Uncertainty exists around the level of training received by all providers | 3 | 2 | 1 | 5 | |
| Providers found some items difficult to administer | Item and domain helpfulness/usefulness varies by agency as well as staff roles | 3 | 5 | 1 | 9 |
| Translating items from risk assessment into youth-friendly language can be difficult | 3 | 3 | 1 | 7 | |
| Providers do not use the tool to answer culturally sensitive questions | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | |
| Tool has the potential to be useful if item-level revisions are made | 3 | 5 | 1 | 9 | |
| The tool needs a clear purpose and relevance to case planning | Tool does not serve a clear purpose in the initiative | 3 | 5 | 1 | 9 |
| Tool not considered useful for case planning | 2 | 2 | 1 | 5 | |
| Providers use information from the referral form to determine youth needs | 3 | 4 | 0 | 7 | |
| Referral form is most practical way for determining youth needs | 3 | 3 | 0 | 6 | |
| Qualitative section on referral form most helpful for assessing youth needs | 0 | 2 | 1 | 3 | |
| Information collection practices to develop service plans vary widely | 3 | 5 | 1 | 9 | |
| Tool does not guide decision-making but has potential to be effective and applicable | 3 | 4 | 1 | 8 | |
| Assessment of risk/need should be a well-defined and supported process | 3 | 4 | 1 | 8 | |
| Develop a scoring system will improve usability | 3 | 1 | 1 | 5 | |
| Tool format and assessment procedures should be compatible to the service setting | Timeframe for completing initial assessment is too short | 3 | 4 | 1 | 8 |
| Uncertainty about the reliability of information collected with the tool because of time constraints and limited rapport building before assessments | 3 | 3 | 1 | 7 | |
| Tool is too long and wordy | 3 | 3 | 0 | 6 | |
| Tool has the potential to be useful if ordering of items is reformatted | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | |
| Tool does not target the goals and missions of different agencies | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
Table 2
Overview of project activities and partner roles during phase.
| Project Step | CBPR Principle | Academic Researcher Role | Community Provider Role | Joint Decision Making |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Step 1: Convene a Collaborative Workgroup |
|
|
|
|
| Step 2: Tool Adaptation and Assessment Protocol Standardization |
|
|
|
|
| Step 3: Quality Assurance and Tool Re-Implementation |
|
|
|
|
[i] Note: Partner roles did not often align with any single CBPR principle; as such, roles are not listed in order of principle.
Table 3
Missing data item analysis for original and adapted assessment tools.
| Assessment tool domains & subdomains | Missing data n (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Original tool (n = 174) | Adapted tool (n = 454) | % Differencec | |
| Academic status | 4 (2%) | 12 (3%) | –1% |
| Attendance | 15 (9%) | 16 (4%) | 5% |
| Suspension/expulsion | 14 (9%) | 14 (3%) | 6% |
| Peer | 12 (7%) | 35 (8%) | –1% |
| Romantic, intimate or sexual | 18 (11%) | 12 (3%) | 8% |
| Gang affiliation | 12 (7%) | 43 (9%) | –2% |
| Use of Free Time | 6 (3%) | 7 (2%) | 1% |
| Employment | 11 (6%) | 4 (1%) | 5% |
| Aggression | 17 (10%) | 18 (4%) | 6% |
| Criminal History | 23 (13%) | 26 (6%) | 7% |
| Criminal statusa | – | 113 (25%) | – |
| Alcohol use | 30 (18%) | 17 (4%) | 14% |
| Historical alcohol usea | – | 18 (4%) | – |
| Drug use | 17 (10%) | 16 (4%) | 6% |
| Historical drug usea | – | 22 (5%) | – |
| Family issues | 10 (6%) | 9 (2%) | 4% |
| Domestic violence | 44 (26%) | 19 (4%) | 22% |
| Housing status | 9 (5%) | 13 (3%) | 2% |
| Teen parenting and pregnancyb | 161 (93%) | 21 (5%) | – |
| Family member incarcerationb | 120 (69%) | 28 (6%) | – |
| Towards anti-social behavior | 26 (15%) | 23 (5%) | 10% |
| Towards fighting and physical aggression to resolve conflict | 18 (11%) | 9 (2%) | 9% |
| Towards school | 47 (27%) | 4 (1%) | 26% |
| Mental health issues | 30 (18%) | 25 (6%) | 12% |
| Support network | 13 (7%) | 13 (3%) | 4% |
| Trauma | 44 (25%) | 29 (6%) | 19% |
[i] Notes: Percentages rounded to the nearest hundredth. Bolded text indicates domains; non-bolded text indicates subdomains. aAdapted tool separated historical and current use into separate subdomains. bOriginal tool only provided a check box for “yes” responses – no distinction could be made between missing data and an endorsement of “not applicable.” cA negative value indicates the adapted tool had higher missingness.