The use of interpersonal maturity level (I-level) classification has been limited by the unavailabilty of an objective, convenient, and quick method for arriving at the classification. This study examined the validity of a hand-scorable, mechanical procedure for deriving I-level subtypes with a sample of serious delinquents. The system uses T scores on nine empirically developed subtype scales based on item analysis of responses to the Jesness Inventory. The sample comprised 1,131 delinquents tested in 1966-1976 and followed for 10 years. Results showed that 65% of the youths received a single classification, 34% a multiple (dual) classification, and 1% were unclassifiable. Analysis of variance indicated that the subtypes differed across a variety of demographic, psychological, attitudinal, and behavioral measures. Long-term criminality was also related to subtype. Regression analyses indicated that the differential responses and characteristics of the subtypes were not simply a function of differences in age, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or aptitude.This report presents data on the validity of the Jesness Inventory I-Level Classification System as revised for hand-scoring. The Sequential I-Level Classification Manual (Jesness, 1974) included information on that system's concurrent, construct, convergent, and predictive validity, but it was important to make sure that in the process of simplifying the scoring we had not lowered the classification's validity.Because some confusion may result from the publication of yet another interpersonal maturity level or integration level (I-level) classification procedure, a brief recapitulation of the major milestones preceding the devel-The revised system for deriving I-level subtypes was developed through the combined efforts of the American Justice Institute and the California Youth Authority.

All county juvenile probation camps operating in California in 1984 were surveyed and 2,835 randomly selected camp releases and removals were followed up for two years. Although the camps provided considerable immediate and longer-term community protection, 65% of the cohort recidivated during the follow-up and 29% were committed to state correctional institutions. However, by comparing camps with each other, several sets of camp characteristics were found to be associated with sizable reductions in recidivism and state commitment. This and related findings suggest that substantial improvements may be possible in the degree of protection camps can provide, and this has implications for the juvenile justice system as a whole. For instance, less recidivism at the county level can lead to lower state commitment rates. This, in turn, can mean less crowding in California's state institutions, less need to construct new facilities, and proportionately more funds remaining for quality programming and for alternatives to incarceration.

No abstract