LA County Cases: An Overview of Characteristics & Disposition Outcomes Denise C. Herz, Ph.D. California State University—Los Angeles School of Criminal Justice & Criminalistics Joseph P. Ryan, Ph.D. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign School of Social Work Children and Family Research Center

Study Background & Overview Began meeting with the Children’s Law Center in Winter 2004 to discuss possible research topics related to crossover youth Discussions were an extension of a University/ Dependency Court Partnership As a result of these discussions: A clear understanding of the processing of crossover youth was developed; A clear understanding of the processing of crossover youth was developed; A collaborative research agenda was developed. A collaborative research agenda was developed. Purpose of Current Study: What are the characteristics of 241 (crossover) youths? What are the characteristics of 241 (crossover) youths? How are these characteristics related to outcomes in the 241 process? How are these characteristics related to outcomes in the 241 process?

Overview of Crossover Process in Los Angeles County After committing delinquency, a dependent youth becomes a case per California statute Petition is filed Petition is filed Special adjudication hearing process is held Special adjudication hearing process is held All cases receive a joint assessment by Probation & the Department of Children & Family Services as part of a hearing process This assessment is then used by the court to determine one of the following outcomes (replaces 241 status): Dismissal of Charges Dismissal of Charges Receive Informal Probation with Primary Custody by DCFS Receive Informal Probation with Primary Custody by DCFS Receive Further Processing in the Delinquency Court Receive Further Processing in the Delinquency Court Under current California law, the youth may not be under the jurisdiction of both systems concurrently

Study Methodology Case file data extraction on all cases in which a dependent youth had crossed over into delinquency between Apr. 1 & Dec. 31, 2004 Data were coded from the joint assessment reports required for the Hearing Process In total, the population of cases=575 cases NOTE: Cases represent individual offenders (multiple referrals reduced to last referral within the timeframe) NOTE: Cases represent individual offenders (multiple referrals reduced to last referral within the timeframe)

What Are the Characteristics of Youth?

General Characteristics (N=575) Demographic Information Female Female33% Average Age Average Age15.73 African-American African-American63% Hispanic Hispanic28% Caucasian Caucasian8% School Status Enrolled Enrolled76% Poor Attendance or Truant Poor Attendance or Truant45% Not Enrolled Not Enrolled24%

Living Situation (N=575) Living Situation at Time of Arrest Living at Home Living at Home13% Living with Relative Living with Relative23% Living in Foster Care Living in Foster Care23% Living in Group Home Living in Group Home40% Detained at Juvenile Hall for Current Offense 54% Current Offense was Related to Placement 31%

Charge/History Information (N=575) Current Offense Charge* Violent Offense Violent Offense40% Assault—64%; Robbery—26% Assault—64%; Robbery—26% Property Offense Property Offense28% Burglary—48% Burglary—48% Other Offense Other Offense26% Warrant—23%; Vandalism—20%; Threats—16% Warrant—23%; Vandalism—20%; Threats—16% Alcohol/Drug Offense Alcohol/Drug Offense6% Other Information: Previous Contact with CJ/JJ System Previous Contact with CJ/JJ System68% *Most serious charge for which the youth was adjudicated. It is important to note that charge description is not an accurate portrayal of actual event in many cases. For example, throwing an unripe avocado would often be charged as an assault. Unfortunately, this aspect of charging was difficult to capture across all cases; consequently, we have no measure of it.

Placement History (N=575) Avg. Length of Stay in Dependency Court 7.38 Years (5.30) Youth Placed in at Least One Placement 98% Average No. Of Placements Relative Relative63%1.85 Foster Care Foster Care72%3.66 Group Home Group Home62%3.22 Residential Treatment Placement Residential Treatment Placement18%2.71

How Do Cases Compare to All DCFS Cases?

Comparisons Across Age All DCFS N=37,885 All 241 N= / DCFS n%n% %10% 10 to %7814%1% 14 to %23541%5% 16 to %24643%6% %142%1% Cautionary Note about Additional Placement, Gender, and Race/Ethnicity Comparisons: Due the data currently available from DCFS, comparisons are made to all cases including 0-9 year olds. The proportion would probably differ in many categories if totals were limited to 10+ year olds.

Comparisons Across Placement All DCFS n=26,167 All 241 n= / DCFS n%n% Relative Home11,23843%13126%1% Foster Care Placement8,87534%13025%1% Group Home1,9898%22945%12% Guardian Home2,53010%163%1% Adoptive Home1,3235% Other2121%7 3% Totals26,167100%513100%2%

Comparisons Across Gender All DCFS N=37,885 All 241 N= / DCFS n%n% Male18,85150%38567%2% Female19,03450%19033%1% Totals37,885100%575100%2%

Comparisons Across Race/Ethnicity All DCFS N=37,885 All 241 N= / DCFS n%n% White540214%448%1% Hispanic %16128%1% African American %36563%3% Asian/Pacific Islander9412%41%0% American Indian2011% Filipino1800% Other1961%10%1% Totals %575100%2%

What is the Relationship between Youth Characteristics & Disposition?

Summary of Disposition Outcomes (n=521)

School Attendance & Disposition (N=521)

Detention & Disposition (N=521)

Most Serious Charge & Disposition (N=521)

MH/SA Problems & Disposition (N=521)

Disposition Outcomes by Resiliency Scores*

Developing an Offender Continuum Risk Level Need Level n% Category % None/LowNone/Low981747% “ Mod to High “High7012 None/Low41741% “ 9216 “High10418 HighNone/Low1112% “ 203 “High4618 *Need Level: None/Low=No Problem or Substance Use; Mod/High=MH or SA Problem; High=Co-Occurring Problems

Implications for System Reform What role can AB 129 play in improving the implementation of best practice? Recognition of a continuum of offenders based on risk and needs Recognition of a continuum of offenders based on risk and needs Development of coordinated case development and oversight by DCFS & Probation Development of coordinated case development and oversight by DCFS & Probation One question that must be addressed given the level of risk found in these youth’s lives is: To what extent accountability interventions are being used in informal responses? Not addressing the behavior problem may be harming (putting youth at higher risk for 602 outcomes in the future) these youth more than helping them Not addressing the behavior problem may be harming (putting youth at higher risk for 602 outcomes in the future) these youth more than helping them Assessing levels of risk and need offers the opportunity to identify a risk/need continuum of offenders The largest percentage of offenders fall within the low spectrum of risks and need The largest percentage of offenders fall within the low spectrum of risks and need A noticeable portion also fall within the moderate to high categories A noticeable portion also fall within the moderate to high categories Small percentages fall within the high risk and need categories, but these are the offenders who will also potentially cause the most harm to self and others in the long-run Small percentages fall within the high risk and need categories, but these are the offenders who will also potentially cause the most harm to self and others in the long-run Substance abuse problems require attention at all levels of risk