Poor matching of prevention programs with risk factors for delinquency

Poor targeting of serious, violent and chronic offenders

Little use of risk and needs assessments Poor matching of offenders with the

level of service Over-use of detention and incarceration

Comprehensive Strategy for Juvenile Delinquency

Problem Behavior > Noncriminal Misbehavior > Delinquency > Serious, Violent, and Chronic Offending

PreventionTarget Population: At-Risk Youth

Preventing youth from becoming

delinquent by focusing prevention

programs on at-risk youth

Graduated SanctionsTarget Population: Delinquent Youth

Improving the juvenile justice

system response to delinquent

offenders through a system of

graduated sanctions and a

continuum of treatment

alternatives

> > > > > >Programs for All Youth

Programs for Youth at Greatest Risk

Immediate Intervention

Intermediate Sanctions

Community Confinement

Training Schools

Aftercare

Prevention and InterventionWindows of Opportunity

Age 3

Family

Source: Howell (2003)

Age 6

School

Age 9

Peer Group

Age 12

IndividualCharacteristics

Age 15

Community

Age 18

ElementarySchoolFailure

ConductProblems

ChildDelinquency

GangMember

Serious andViolent

Delinquency

Prevention Early Intervention Treatment& Sanctions

Risk and Protective Factors

Risk/protective factors in the individual, family, peer group, school, neighborhood

ConductDisorder

EarlyDelinquency

Serious andViolent JuvenileOffending

Prevention Prevention Prevention

Intervention Intervention Intervention

Comprehensive Strategy Mantra

Research-based

Data-driven

Outcome-focused

Non-Serious Non-ViolentNon-Chronic

64%

Serious

34%

Chronic

15%

Violent

8%

C,S & V

4%

Source: Snyder (1998) Maricopa Co. Study (N=151,209)

Juvenile Offender Court Careers

Defiance/Disobedience

Stubborn Behavior

Authority Conflict Pathway(Before Age 12)

Authority Avoidance

(truancy, running away, staying out late)

Minor Covert Minor Covert BehaviorBehavior(shoplifting, (shoplifting,

frequent lying)frequent lying)

Covert Covert PathwayPathway

Minor Minor AggressionAggression

(bullying, (bullying, annoying annoying others)others)

Overt Overt PathwayPathway

Physical Fighting

(physical fighting, gang fighting)

Property Damage

(vandalism, firesetting)

Violence

(rape, attack,

strongarm)

Moderate to Serious

Delinquency

(fraud, burglary, serious theft)

Age of Onset

Late

% Boys

Few

Pathways to Boys’ Chronic, Serious, Violent Delinquency

Early Many

Developed by the Jordan Institute for Families

Risk factors, indicators, & data are accessible online: http://www.unc.edu/ncjcp/

Individual Risk FactorsIndividual Risk Factors

Birth–6 7–11 12–16

• Constitutional Factors

• Behavior problems in school

• Academic failure

• Early conduct problems

• Gang membership

Birth–6 7–11 12–16

• Constitutional Factors

• Behavior problems in school

• Academic failure

• Early conduct problems

• Gang membership

Family Risk FactorsFamily Risk Factors

Birth–6 7–11 12–16

• Prenatal factors • Family management problems

• Parent problems

• Family conflict & disruption

Birth–6 7–11 12–16

• Prenatal factors • Family management problems

• Parent problems

• Family conflict & disruption

Peer Group Risk FactorsPeer Group Risk Factors

Birth–6 7–11 12–16

• Peer rejection

• Peer delinquent behavior

Birth–6 7–11 12–16

• Peer rejection

• Peer delinquent behavior

School-level Risk FactorsSchool-level Risk Factors

Birth–6 7–11 12–16

• School & classroom size

• Disruptive school environment

Birth–6 7–11 12–16

• School & classroom size

• Disruptive school environment

Community Risk FactorsCommunity Risk Factors

Birth–6 7–11 12–16

• Impoverished neighborhood

• Community drug & alcohol use • Community crime & violence

• Presence of gangs

• Availability of guns

Birth–6 7–11 12–16

• Impoverished neighborhood

• Community drug & alcohol use • Community crime & violence

• Presence of gangs

• Availability of guns

SampleSample

31%

OffensesOffenses

82%RochesterRochester

SampleSample

14%

OffensesOffenses

79%DenverDenver

SampleSample

15%

Offenses(Robberies Only) Offenses(Robberies Only)

85%SeattleSeattle

Source: Thornberry, 1998

Source: Lynskey et al. (2000); NB: Ever or current members of a delinquent gang

12

34

5

12%17%

28%23%

20%

Increasing Sanctions

Decreasing Sanctions

Diversion

Youth Court

Probation

Intensive PS

CB Resid.

Residential Placement

Intensive PS

Probation

Group Counseling

Mentoring

Day/EveReport.

Detention screening instruments Intake screening instruments Research-based risk risk

assessments Objective assessments of youth

and family strengths and needs A placement matrix for

recommending court dispositions Standardized case plans Routine assessment of case plan

progress

DJJDP has a validated risk assessment instrument

DJJDP has a needs/strengths assessment instrument

The JJ Reform Act provided a Disposition Matrix

The Disposition Matrix and risk assessment instrument are functioning well in guiding offender placements

A disposition matrix organizes sanctions and programs by risk level and offense severity.

It places offenders along a continuum of programs and sanctions

Research shows that a reliable risk assessment instrument predicts different recidivism rates at various risk levels.

Low risk offenders are placed in community programs with minimal supervision

Medium risk offenders are typically placed in more structured community programs with intensive probation supervision

High risk offenders may be placed in Youth Development Centers

Offender Disposition Matrix

Risk Level

Offense Low Medium High

Violent Level 2 or 3 Level 3 Level 3

Serious Level 1 or 2 Level 2 Level 2 or 3

Minor Level 1 Level 1 or 2 Level 2

       

Level 1 Community

Level 2 Intermediate

Level 3 Commitment to Youth Development Center

 

 

  

Dispositional Levels Risk Level by Disposition 

Low Medium High Total 

  %% % %

Level 1 – Community 65% 31% 3% 100%

Level 2 – Intermediate 27% 47% 26% 100%

Level 3 – Commitment 7% 23% 70% 100%

Protective Supervision 47% 49% 4% 100%

Total 49% 38% 14% 100%

Disposition of Court Referrals by Risk Level

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Low Medium High

Recidivism by Risk Level (percent with new court complaints)

DJJDP & JCPCs have responsibility for evaluating JCPC-funded programs

DJJDP has responsibility for identifying “best practices”

• Most juvenile justice programs reduce recidivism--at least slightly.

• The most practical and cost-effective approach is to improve existing programs.

• This can be done by applying research-based knowledge of the features of effective programs.

Four Main Characteristics Of Effective Programs

1. The Program Type (primary intervention)

2. Supplementary Services

3. Amount of Service

4. Characteristics of Clients

Number of Favorable Characteristics

Distribution of Programs

Percentage of Change in Recidivism

0 7% +12%

1 50% -2 %

2 27% -10%

3 15% -20%

4 2% -24%

What is it?

A practical method for evaluating juvenile justice and delinquency prevention programs against best practices

The SPEP provides a scheme (protocol) for assigning points to programs according to how closely their characteristics match those associated with the best outcomes in research.

How was the SPEP developed?

The SPEP contains the main features of effective evaluated programs.

Point allocations are based on research results that are “standardized” across studies, showing the added increment of delinquency reduction each program feature produces, on average.

It is not a whole blueprint for a program. It measures only the delinquency reduction potential a program type has, on average, based on prior research.

It will not provide a treatment plan for individual clients, only a framework within which treatment can be planned.

Primary Program Types for SPEPs(A separate SPEP for each)

  Individual counselingGroup counselingFamily counselingParent training/counselingRestitutionInterpersonal skillsTutoring/remedial educationMentoringEmployment relatedDrug/alcohol therapy/counseling

Other Services that may Supplement Primary Programs

Behavior management

Life skills

Intensive supervision

Cognitive behavioral

Prevention Programs: Service Categories

  Effective, and above averageParent training/counselingInterpersonal skills trainingTutoring

 Effective, and about averageGroup counselingDrug/alcohol therapy/counselingEmployment-related

 Effective, but below averageIndividual counselingMentoringFamily counseling

Court Supervised Delinquency Programs: Service Categories 

Effective, and above averageFamily counselingTutoringMentoring

  Effective, and about averageParent training/counselingInterpersonal skills trainingDrug/alcohol therapy/counselingEffective, but below averageIndividual counselingGroup counselingEmployment-relatedRestitution

Three Sets of SPEPs for the NC Juvenile Justice Continuum

Delinquency Prevention

Court Delinquency Supervision

Commitment Programming &

Aftercare

Expected Recidivism with Features of Effective Prevention Programs

Comparable Juvs not in Evaluated Program 30%

Average Prevention Program in Database 27%

Effective, Above Average Program (EAP) 25%

EAP+Best Supplemental Service (BSS) 20%

EAP+BSS+Optimal Service Amount (OSA) 17%

EAP+BSS+OSA+Appropriate Clients 13%

Comparable Juveniles not in a Program 40%

Average Supervision Program in Database 34%

Effective, Above Average Program (EAP) 32%

EAP+Best Supplemental Service (BSS) 28%

EAP+BSS+Optimal Service Amount (OSA) 24%

EAP+BSS+OSA+Appropriate Clients 21%

PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT & CONTINUUM BUILDING PROCESS

D ELIN Q U EN C Y PR EVEN T IO N

S k il l E nhancem ent C om m unity D ay Progs . C ounse l ing Progs . Intens ive S upervis ion C onfinem ent C om m itm ent Progs .

C O U R T D ELIN Q U EN C Y SU PER VIS IO N C O MMIT MEN T PR O G R AMING & AFT ER C AR E

AcademicAchievement

Drug Health Education

Group Counseling

BehavioralManagement

IndividualCounseling

InterpersonalSkills

CognitiveBehavior