DJJDP’s Comprehensive Delinquency Prevention & Intervention Strategy Buddy Howell Pinehurst, NC

The Need For a Comprehensive Strategy 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

NC’s Comprehensive Strategy for Juvenile Delinquency Problem Behavior > Noncriminal Misbehavior > Delinquency > Serious, Violent, and Chronic Offending Prevention Target Population: At-Risk Youth Preventing youth from becoming delinquent by focusing prevention programs on at-risk youth Graduated Sanctions Target 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

Integrated Prevention and Intervention Risk/protective factors in the individual, family, peer group, school, neighborhood Conduct Disorder Early Delinquency Serious and Violent Juvenile Offending Prevention Intervention

Comprehensive Strategy Mantra Research- based Data- driven Outcome- focused

Non-Serious Non-Violent Non-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 Behavior (shoplifting, frequent lying) Covert Pathway Minor Aggression (bullying, annoying others) Overt Pathway 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 EarlyMany

Risk Factors for Delinquency Developed by the Jordan Institute for Families Risk factors, indicators, & data are accessible online:

Individual Risk Factors Birth–67–11 12–16 Constitutional Factors Behavior problems in school Academic failure Early conduct problems Gang membership Birth–67–11 12–16 Constitutional Factors Behavior problems in school Academic failure Early conduct problems Gang membership

Family Risk Factors Birth–67–11 12–16 Prenatal factors Family management problems Parent problems Family conflict & disruption Birth–67–11 12–16 Prenatal factors Family management problems Parent problems Family conflict & disruption

Peer Group Risk Factors Birth–67–11 12–16 Peer rejection Peer delinquent behavior Birth–67–11 12–16 Peer rejection Peer delinquent behavior

School-level Risk Factors Birth–67–11 12–16 School & classroom size Disruptive school environment Birth–67–11 12–16 School & classroom size Disruptive school environment

Community Risk Factors Birth–67–11 12–16 Impoverished neighborhood Community drug & alcohol use Community crime & violence Presence of gangs Availability of guns Birth–67–11 12–16 Impoverished neighborhood Community drug & alcohol use Community crime & violence Presence of gangs Availability of guns

Percent of All Serious Violent Offenses Committed by Gang Members Sample 31% Offenses 82% Rochester Sample 14% Offenses 79% Denver Sample 15% Offenses (Robberies Only) Offenses (Robberies Only) 85% Seattle Source: Thornberry, 1998

8th Graders’ Position in the Gang Source: Lynskey et al. (2000); NB: Ever or current members of a delinquent gang 12% 17% 28% 23% 20%

A Graduated Sanctions Model Increasing SanctionsDecreasing Sanctions Diversion Youth Court Probation Intensive PS CB Resid. Residential Placement Intensive PS Probation Group Counseling Mentoring Day/Eve Report.

Structured Decision Making Tools  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

Key DJJDP SDM Tools 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

Disposition Matrix 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.

Key Points of the Disposition Matrix 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

North Carolina Offender Disposition Matrix Risk Level OffenseLowMediumHigh ViolentLevel 2 or 3Level 3 SeriousLevel 1 or 2Level 2Level 2 or 3 MinorLevel 1Level 1 or 2Level 2 Level 1 Community Level 2 Intermediate Level 3 Commitment to Youth Development Center

Dispositional Levels Risk Level by Disposition Low MediumHigh Total % % % % Level 1 – Community 65% 31%3%100% Level 2 – Intermediate 27%47%26% 100% Level 3 – Commitment7%23%70% 100% Protective Supervision 47%49%4%100% Total49%38%14% 100% Disposition of NC Court Referrals by Risk Level

A Practical Approach To Evaluating and Improving Juvenile Justice Programs Utilizing The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol The Lipsey-Howell Project

Participating Organizations Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Vanderbilt Institute for Public Policy This project is funded by the Governor’s Crime Commission & DJJDP.

Project Team Dr. Mark Lipsey (Vanderbilt Univ.) Dr. James “Buddy” Howell (NC) Dr. Simon Tidd (Vanderbilt Univ.) Mr. Ron Mangum, M.A. (NC) Dr. James “Jim” Palmer (NC) DJJDP Ms. Susan Whitten, State Administrator, Intervention & Prevention Division

Pilot Counties Buncombe Guilford Nash Vance Robeson Rockingham Yancey Pitt

DJJDP & JCPC Evaluation Requirements in 1998 Juvenile Justice Reform Act DJJDP & JCPCs have responsibility for evaluating JCPC-funded programs DJJDP has responsibility for identifying “best practices”

North Carolina’s Practical Approach to Improving Juvenile Justice System Programs 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.

Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol Development: The Evidence Base Dr. Mark W. Lipsey Vanderbilt University

1589 Observed Effects from 556 Outcome Studies

Four Main Characteristics Of Effective Programs 1. The Program Type (primary intervention) 2. Supplementary Services 3. Amount of Service 4. Characteristics of Clients

Comparison of Programs with Varying Numbers of Favorable Characteristics Proportion of practical programs with different numbers of favorable characteristics and associated change in recidivism rates relative to control group Number of Favorable Characteristics Distribution of Programs Percentage of Change in Recidivism 07%+12% 150%-2 % 227%-10% 315%-20% 42%-24%

The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) 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.

The SPEP cont’d How was the SPEP developed? Dr. Lipsey maintains and analyzes the only database of more than 600 evaluated juvenile justice programs. The SPEP contains the main features of effective evaluated programs that are similar to North Carolina 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.

What the SPEP is NOT 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 counseling Group counseling Family counseling Parent training/counseling Restitution Interpersonal skills Tutoring/remedial education Mentoring Employment related Drug/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 average Parent training/counseling Interpersonal skills training Tutoring Effective, and about average Group counseling Drug/alcohol therapy/counseling Employment-related Effective, but below average Individual counseling Mentoring Family counseling

Court Supervised Delinquency Programs: Service Categories Effective, and above average Family counseling Tutoring Mentoring Effective, and about average Parent training/counseling Interpersonal skills training Drug/alcohol therapy/counseling Effective, but below average Individual counseling Group counseling Employment-related Restitution

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 Program30% Average Prevention Program in Database27% Effective, Above Average Program (EAP)25% EAP+Best Supplemental Service (BSS)20% EAP+BSS+Optimal Service Amount (OSA)17% EAP+BSS+OSA+Appropriate Clients13%

Expected Recidivism with Features of Effective Court Delinquency Supervision Programs Comparable Juveniles not in a Program40% Average Supervision Program in Database34% Effective, Above Average Program (EAP)32% EAP+Best Supplemental Service (BSS)28% EAP+BSS+Optimal Service Amount (OSA)24% EAP+BSS+OSA+Appropriate Clients21%

PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT & CONTINUUM BUILDING PROCESS Academic Achievement Drug Health Education Group Counseling Behavioral Management Individual Counseling Interpersonal Skills Cognitive Behavior

Next Steps in the Pilot Counties (September-October) SPEP evaluation of individual JCPC programs using client tracking information Engage service providers in making program improvements to conform more closely with best practices Program Improvement

Next Steps cont. (September-October) Continuum Building Identify local existing program types Identify primary interventions within program types Identify supplementary interventions within program types Analysis of risk and needs assessments (Vanderbilt) Engage JCPCs in continuum building

Statewide Roll-out (October-March) 4 Area Meetings (June) SOS & Prevention/Intervention Area Conferences (Sept.) Training on Overview of SPEP Applications (Oct.-Nov.) (Details TBD) Train DJJDP’s Dissemination of Information and Skills Teams (TBD) Program ratings (Jan.-Feb.) Train judges (TBD)