Using Research and Evidence-Based Services to Reduce the Age-Crime Curve in North Carolina Buddy Howell Area Consultants Retreat Atlantic Beach Trinity.

Using Research and Evidence-Based Services to Reduce the Age-Crime Curve in North Carolina Buddy Howell Area Consultants Retreat Atlantic Beach Trinity Center Nov. 30, Buddy Howell Comprehensive Strategy Group

Kudos: North Carolina EBP Leadership
First statewide community-based alternatives (CBAs) (late 1970s) First “wraparound” model in the U.S. (Willie M. Program) (early 1980s) With the 1998 Juvenile Justice Reform Act, North Carolina became the second state to mandate evidence-based services. First county-level statewide Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils; first statewide risk factor assessments (late 1990’s) Through the DPI/DJJDP joint study efforts, DJJDP and DPI recognized a gap in knowledge across the State about the level of gang activity and a lack of gang-focused programs for juveniles. In 2009, the DJJDP received American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds via Byrne/JAG grants to launch cutting edge initiatives for assessing gang problems in local communities systematically and implementing evidence-based programs to serve high-risk and gang-involved youth. With leadership from NC Governor Beverly Perdue and through support from the NC Governor’s Crime Commission (GCC), two major initiatives started in late 2009: 1) Community-Based Youth Gang Violence Prevention Project; and 2) The Governor’s Gang Prevention and Intervention Pilot Project. Both initiatives were essential to plugging the gaps in services created by the loss in 2009 of Support Our Students afterschool programs (SOS), Governor’s One-on-One (mentoring programming for court-involved youth), and reduction of JCPC funding due to budget cuts. The gang initiatives became critical to maintaining a continuum of services within the NC juvenile justice system focused specifically on the risk factors associated with gang involvement.

North Carolina EBP leadership continued
First statewide evaluation of juvenile delinquency programs ( ) First book published on statewide school violence prevention initiatives (2009) First statewide implementation of the Comprehensive Gang Model (2009) First network of therapeutic Model of Care treatment statewide in YDCs and multipurpose homes (2010) First statewide risk-need assessment of gang members and program recommendations (2011) First statewide risk-need data-driven EBP Level II community programs (2012) Through the DPI/DJJDP joint study efforts, DJJDP and DPI recognized a gap in knowledge across the State about the level of gang activity and a lack of gang-focused programs for juveniles. In 2009, the DJJDP received American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds via Byrne/JAG grants to launch cutting edge initiatives for assessing gang problems in local communities systematically and implementing evidence-based programs to serve high-risk and gang-involved youth. With leadership from NC Governor Beverly Perdue and through support from the NC Governor’s Crime Commission (GCC), two major initiatives started in late 2009: 1) Community-Based Youth Gang Violence Prevention Project; and 2) The Governor’s Gang Prevention and Intervention Pilot Project. Both initiatives were essential to plugging the gaps in services created by the loss in 2009 of Support Our Students afterschool programs (SOS), Governor’s One-on-One (mentoring programming for court-involved youth), and reduction of JCPC funding due to budget cuts. The gang initiatives became critical to maintaining a continuum of services within the NC juvenile justice system focused specifically on the risk factors associated with gang involvement.

More NC EBP Kudos First state to fully adopt the OJJDP Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders Most effective statewide use of risk and need assessments of juvenile offenders in conjunction with a disposition matrix to reduce confinement (early 2000s) The 1998 Juvenile Justice Reform Act required a statewide evaluation of programs funded through the Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) was developed specifically for this purpose. It was rolled out in 2006.

Six other states have followed North Carolina’s lead
Arizona Florida Connecticut Pennsylvania Delaware Iowa Milwaukee (not a state; but it’s almost as large as Delaware!)

Present goal: Reduce the age-crime curve in NC
This figure of the age-crime curve shows the percentages of children and adolescents arrested for violent crimes from age 9 to 25 across many studies and it applies to all populations of youth in American and European countries (Loeber & Farrington, 2012, p. 5). The average percent arrested is shown on the left side of the figure. Looking at the age dimension across the bottom, we see that violent offending increases from the end of childhood (age 12) to middle adolescence (ages 13-16) .The frequency of offending usually peaks round ages 17-19, and desistance occurs more slowly in the down-slope than onset in the up-slope. This figure suggests a big three-part challenge for statewide juvenile justice systems. First, can the up-slope be flattened so that fewer children are early onset offenders. Second, can the overall percentage that is arrested for serious property and violent crimes be reduced? And, third,can the down-slope be truncated so that it falls off more sharply? The prospects for achieving this look very promising provided that states are able to target the most serious, violent, and chronic offenders. is the Now lets drill into the age-crime curve for these subgroups of offenders looking first at the pathways youth take to become SVCOs. Source: Loeber & Farrington, 2012 6

AUTHORITY CONFLICT PATHWAY
Developmental pathways to serious and violent behavior AGE OF ONSET: LATE EARLY %BOYS/GIRLS: FEW MANY SERIOUS DELINQUENCY (auto theft, burglary) VIOLENCE (rape, attack, strong-arm, homicide) MODERATELY SERIOUS DELINQUENCY (fraud, pick-pocketing) PHYSICAL FIGHTING (physical fighting, gang fighting) PROPERTY DAMAGE (vandalism, fire-setting) AUTHORITY AVOIDANCE (truancy, running away, staying out late) MINOR AGGRESSION (bullying, annoying others) Researchers have discovered three main overlapping pathways in the development of delinquency from childhood to late adolescence. This figure illustrates the proportion of children who advance in the pathways, beginning with the relatively large group that engages in very minor misbehavior in preschool. The narrowing of the triangles represents the smaller and smaller group that advances in these pathways from childhood to adolescence. All the offenses shown here are were charted by researchers from reports by parents and teachers, and self-reports of youth themselves. The three main pathways are the authority conflict pathway, the covert pathway, and the overt pathway. The authority conflict pathway culminates in minor delinquent offenses, the covert pathway consists of concealing and serious property offenses, and the overt pathway consists of violent offenses. Advancing is a sequential process, and the offenders who advance in all three pathways to become serious, violent and chronic offenders. The three pathways has been verified in four large cities, and in a nationally representative U.S. sample of adolescents, and they apply to girls as well as boys, although less consistently for girls. The problem is that when a young offender is first referred to juvenile court, juvenile justice system officials have a very limited view, or snapshot, of that person’s entire offending career, often based solely on official records. Risk assessment instruments are key tools for helping juvenile justice officials make such distinctions. MINOR COVERT BEHAVIOR (shoplifting, frequent lying) OVERT PATHWAY COVERT PATHWAY (before age 15) Defiance/Disobedience Stubborn Behavior AUTHORITY CONFLICT PATHWAY (before age 12) © Loeber: Pittsburgh Youth Study

A BIG challenge on the horizon: 16-17 year olds
This figure represents the fictional criminal career of a very persistent offender. The person in question commits his or her first crime at the age of 8, the offending escalates during adolescence; it peaks at 18 and plateaus until 25 after which it tails off, eventually ending at age 30. This figure depicts three intervention scenarios and their impact on the fictional individual’s age-crime curve. First, it assumes no JJS intervention with the fictional persistent offender. Hence the offender already has a 10-year career. If intervention does not occur until that point, he already will be a SVC offender and may have committed more than 100 offenses. In the second scenario, the SVC offender begins desisting after age 18. Desistance could be a product of earlier JJS intervention or CJS intervention in late adolescence or in early adulthood. It should be easier for the CJS to reduce recidivism because offenders naturally begin desistance in early adulthood even if no intervention occurs. The reduced volume of offending without any intervention is represented in the green area under the curve. Third, if no intervention whatsoever occurs, the green-shaded area depicts the adult criminal career of the fictional life-course persistent offender. Researchers in a Pittsburgh study (Welsh et al., 2008) conservatively estimate that the entire cohort of 500 boys in a high crime area burden society in the form of victimization costs, ranging from a low of $89 million to a high of $110 million. McNeill et al., 2012, p. 44

A small proportion of delinquents is responsible for half of all youth crime
This figure illustrates the delinquency progression of proportions of disruptive children and child delinquents growing up in high crime areas of Pittsburgh (Loeber, Slott, van der Laan, & Hoeve, 2008; Van Domburgh et al., 2009). About one-fourth of all children who engage in pre-delinquent disruptive behavior escalated to minor delinquent acts. About one-third to half of child delinquents escalated to SVC delinquency. About two-thirds of this group persists in moderate to serious offending during adolescence. Nearly half of the persistent offender group (45%) offended at a high peak level of severity during adolescence, the serious persisters. The other half (55%) persisted offending at a minor to moderate peak level of severity. About a fifth of the sample (20%) of child delinquents desisted offending during adolescence. Altogether, the SVC offenders accounted for about half of all serious and violent offenses in adolescence and adulthood (Loeber, Slott et al., 2009). Source: Loeber, Slot, Laan, & Hoeve, 2008

Juvenile offender court careers in NC Current groups soon & profile analyses later
Serious or Violent Chronic 10% 28% Non-Serious Non-Violent Non-Chronic 60% C & V 0.5% Violent 2% Numbers may not add to 100% due to missing data 1.Non-Serious,Non-violent,Non-chronic=10895, and included juveniles had less than 4 prior referrals and were not previously adjudicated nor currently charged with a felony offense or an A1 Misdemeanor 2.Chronic Offenders=1783 and included any offender who had 4 or more prior referrals to intake 3.Serious and Violent Offenders=5079 and included offenders who were previously adjudicated or currently charged with a felony offense or A1 Misdemeanor. 4. Violent Offenders =403 and included those offenders who have previously been adjudicated or are currently charged with a Class A-E Felony 5. Chronic and Violent Offenders =98 and included those offenders who have previously been adjudicated or are currently charged with a Class A-E Felony and who have had 4 or more prior referrals to intake Source: NC DJJDP Risk Assessment Data FY to FY (N=17,645)

The North Carolina Comprehensive Strategy for Juvenile Offenders
Problem Behavior > Noncriminal Misbehavior > Delinquency > Serious, Violent, and Chronic Offending Prevention Target Population: At-Risk Youth Graduated Sanctions Target Population: Delinquent Youth Programs for All Youth > Programs for Youth at Greatest Risk > Immediate Intervention > Intermediate Sanctions > Community Confinement > Training Schools > Aftercare Preventing youth from becoming delinquent by focusing prevention programs on at-risk youth Improving the juvenile justice system response to delinquent offenders through a system of graduated sanctions and a continuum of treatment alternatives There is considerable evidence that North Carolina’s Comprehensive Strategy is working, but several improvements need to be made. Disproportionate representation of Black youths in the JJS remains a serious problem. In addition, detention is used excessively. The disposition matrix and risk assessment instruments are producing improvements in the placements of offenders. Admissions to YDCs have dropped by two-thirds (without an increase in arrests or court complaints across the state). Court referrals have leveled off, but the decrease in admissions to YDCs puts additional pressure on court programs. Needs assessments should be used more along with risk assessments to achieve a better match between offenders and programs. In the next phase of this project, we are going to work with JCPCs and Juvenile Courts to evaluate programs and strengthen NCs Comp Strat and make improvements to it. This is a unique opportunity to integrate the prevention and intervention components, beginning with JCPC programs that serve court adjudicated youths.

North Carolina disposition matrix
Risk Level Offense Low Medium High Violent Level 2 or 3 Level 3 Serious Level 1 or 2 Level 2 Minor Level 1 Level 1 Community Level 2 Intermediate Level 3 Commitment to Youth Development Center

A model integrated supervision and service system with continuous probation officer involvement in case management This model shows how offenders are stepped up and stepped down in a graduated sanctions system. When offenders persist in serious and violent delinquency, their position in a graduated sanctions system should be advanced. As offenders progress in the graduated sanctions system, linked rehabilitation programs must become more structured and intensive, to deal effectively with the intractable problems that more difficult and dangerous offenders present, while reserving secure confinement for the much smaller number of serious, chronic, and violent juvenile offenders. This figure also illustrates that a separate track may not be needed. Following confinement, offenders can be returned to court-based services in the community and to probation officer supervision, ideally under the modified comprehensive treatment and supervision plan. NCCD designed an aftercare model, called the Intensive Supervision Program, that consists of five phases with decreasing levels of restrictiveness: 1.Short-term placement in secure confinement 2.Day treatment 3.Outreach and tracking 4.Routine supervision 5.Discharge and follow-up The youth is discharged (Phase 5) when a community-based support system is in place.

Family/ Children Services Mental Health Juvenile Justice Schools How can we get these groups to work together in reducing delinquency and other problem behaviors? Source: Judge Tom Rawlings Sandersville, GA

Make Program and System Improvements
Offender-Service Matching Process PREVENTION Match Match JJ Entry Risk Assessment Level of Supervision Options Needs Assessment Effective Program Options Probation Services and Clinical Case Management A system-wide framework for managing offender flow, recidivism reduction, and reduced confinement Re-offense Rate, Incarceration Rate, Mental Health outcomes, etc. Achieving desired outcomes? Yes? Done Unsatisfactory outcomes? Make Program and System Improvements 15 15

Key Principle “Nowhere is collaboration in juvenile justice more important than in the interactions of court counselors and service providers.” (Source: Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency, 2012)

Infrastructure for Service Matching
Disposition matrix Valid risk and needs assessment instruments Standardized service plans Interdisciplinary case coordination protocols Evidence-based services SPEP scoring and program improvement Continuum mapping tool

DJJ Building Blocks for Service Matching
Peer reviews for continuing quality improvement Quality assurance of court services, facilities, community programs, and program improvement plans A graduated response and rewards tool A detention screening guide for court counselors Standardized service plans (automated risk/need based); pilots; to be linked with SPEP primary service types; interdisciplinary staffing Service Planning Child and Family Teams; presently for reentry, with goal throughout systems SPEP program ratings Provider Program Improvement Plans Data-driven program placement levels A real-time statewide offender database-NC ALLIES

Mapping the Existing Continuum JCPC Planning Tool

NC ALLIES Supports JCPC application process Client tracking system
Measurable objectives by program type An accountability system

Systemic Issues in Matching
Program capacity must match population Group services Losing group size Missed sessions Length of probation services not matched to duration of treatment Service barriers

The BIG challenge: High risk offenders
Risk Factors of Youth Committed to YDCs: 2010 83% had 2 or more referrals prior to the current intake 57% had prior F-I Felony or A1 Misdemeanor adjudication 36% had a history of assault without a weapon 77% have serious problems in school (suspension from school, expulsion, dropping out) 46% have a history of substance abuse and other disorders requiring further assessment and/or treatment 60% have parents willing but unable to supervise 38% are reported gang members or gang associates The deeper into the juvenile justice system youth had penetrated, the more likely they are to be gang-involved; 7% of all juveniles on whom delinquent complaints are filed 13% of juveniles adjudicated 21% of juveniles admitted to short-term detention 38% of juveniles committed to secure residential facilities DJJDP 2010 Annual Report Source: DJJDP 2010 Annual Report

Risk Level of Gang Members versus Other Offenders in North Carolina
Source: M.Q. Howell & W. Lassiter, 2011

Important data on gang members in NC
The deeper into the juvenile justice system youth had penetrated, the more likely they were to be gang-involved (FY ): 7% of all juveniles on whom delinquent complaints are filed, 13% of juveniles adjudicated delinquent, 21% of juveniles admitted to short-term detention, and 38% of juveniles committed to secure residential facilities The most elevated needs of North Carolina gang members identified system-wide (FY ): Parents have marginal or inadequate parenting skills (88%) Marital discord or domestic violence in the home (39%) Needs additional mental health assessment or treatment (53%) Youth is generally functioning below grade level or has un-served “Exceptional Children's” needs (25%) Source: M.Q. Howell & W. Lassiter, 2011

Treatment needs of gang members versus other offenders in North Carolina
Source: M.Q. Howell & W. Lassiter, 2011

Protocol for matching youth with services
Two levels of assessment: Initial screen (current or immediate emotional, psychological, and behavioral functioning) In-depth, professional clinical assessments of specific problem behaviors Substance Abuse Mental Health Sex Offending Education assessment Mental health disorder contributes to recidivism above and beyond the typical measures of risk, i.e., demographic and offense characteristics. (McReynolds et al 2010)

Next Steps Toward Reducing the Age-Crime Curve in North Carolina
Implement the recalibrated SPEP Update program classifications Make an adjustment in NC ALLIES to collect SPEP-required data elements Integrate DJJs new quality of services measures Develop a program improvement protocol Update serious, violent, chronic offender analysis System-wide measurement of recidivism reductions

Emerging Research Now mapping risk factors across the life course into early adulthood Key finding: Programs are likely to be more effective if they do not restrict their focus to one risk domain or one risk factor within a domain Desistance Research Key predictors: good supervision, low parental stress, high academic achievement, and high perceived likelihood of getting caught. Risk factors that hinder desistance: high alcohol use, active drug dealing, gang membership, gun carrying, depressed mood, high anxiety, high violence victimization, and high peer delinquency.

Pathways to Desistance Study
For intermediate lengths of stay (i.e months), there appears to be little or no marginal benefit for longer length of stay Source: Mulvey OJJDP Coordinating Council presentation, 2012

What about girls? Girls’ conduct disorder rates are approximately half that of boys’ rates (McReynolds et al., 2008), and 28% of arrested youth are female (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006). Do delinquent boys and girls have the same risk and protective factors? Both static and dynamic factors predict recidivism in girls and boys (Van Der Put et al., 2011) but base rates and risk factors differ by gender (Johnson, national analysis). But the cumulative effects of risk factors may be worse for girls than for boys; requiring multimodal services (Hipwell et al., 2002; Hipwell & Loeber, 2006). And girls also have higher levels of co-occurring problems than boys (McReynolds et al., 2010). Two examples: Girls’ rates of anxiety and affective disorders are higher than boys, and violent girls are more likely than other groups to have anxiety disorders (Wasserman et al., 2005). White youth, repeat offenders, and those with further justice system penetration reported higher rates of most disorders; girls reported higher rates of internalizing conditions (affective and anxiety disorders) (Wasserman et al 2010). Affective disorders: mental illnesses which predominantly affect mood and also have an effect on thoughts, behaviors, and emotions. Lipsey’s meta-analysis showed that mean age, gender mix, and ethnic mix of the juvenile samples showed generally negligible relationships with the recidivism effects, indicating that intervention effects are relatively robust across these differences. The one characteristic of the juveniles receiving interventions that did show an overall relationship with recidivism outcomes was risk for delinquency. Interventions applied to high-risk delinquents, on average, produced larger recidivism reductions than for low-risk delinquents. However, the intervention effects were somewhat reduced for juveniles whose prior history included aggressive or violent offenses, albeit still significantly positive for reduced recidivism. (Howell & Lipsey, 2012) NB: To be sure, there are other important features that were not sufficiently reported in studies to allow them to be coded and included in the analysis. For instance, we would expect the credentials of the therapists and service providers and, especially, the clinical quality of their services to influence the outcomes. Also, such characteristics of the juveniles as amenability to treatment and family support of the intervention services could well be influential (Howell & Lipsey, 2012).

Girls Unique Treatment Needs
Delinquent girls also appear to have more severe family problems, especially in disadvantaged areas (Hipwell et al., 2002). Antisocial females are more impaired across a range of co-occurring social, health, or educational domains than are antisocial males (McReynolds et al., 2008). Although boys are more likely to report some type of assault victimization, females are 10 times more likely to experience sexual assault than boys (McReynolds et al., 2010). Half not diagnosed in JJS--For “hidden” concerns such as suicide risk and depression, need direct youth input to identify problems. Good news: Statewide implementation of the Voice DISC would identify mental health treatment needs of girls and boys. “Now the focus needs to be on how to ensure that we successfully link properly identified youth to properly configured (evidence-based) services.” (Dr. Gail Wasserman, Van Der Put, C. E., Dekovic, M., Geert, J. J., Stams, M., Van Der Laan, P. H., Hoeve, M., & Van Amelsfort, L. V. (2011). Changes in risk factors during adolescence: Implications for risk assessment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 248–262. The goals of this study were to examine to what extent the occurrence and impact of both static and dynamic risk factors for recidivism change in the course of adolescence. For this purpose, research was conducted among youngsters who had been referred to the Council of Child Care and Protection (CCCP) for committing a criminal offense. Youngsters in early adolescence (12-13 years old), middle adolescence (14-15 years old), and late adolescence (16-17 years old) were compared. In addition, we investigated to what extent recidivism can be predicted at different ages and to what extent differences exist between the most important predictors for recidivism. The analyses have shown that the level of recidivism depends on the age of youngsters and, more specifically, that recidivism is lowest in early adolescence, peaks in middle adolescence, and diminishes again in late adolescence. The risk of recidivism increased significantly when detention was imposed at a young age. This study examined to what extent the significance of both static and dynamic risk factors for recidivism changes in the course of adolescence using the Washington State Juvenile Court Prescreen Assessment. For this purpose, file and interview data of 1,396 juveniles charged with a criminal offense were analyzed. This study showed that the impact of almost all dynamic risk factors decreased as juveniles grew older. As a result, the predictive power of risk assessment models also decreased. From age 14, dynamic risk factors did not contribute significantly to the prediction of recidivism over static risk factors. Some static risk factors become increasingly important as adolescents grow older.

A goal within reach: Reduce the age-crime curve in North Carolina with EBP and best practices
This figure shows a simulation of treatment effects. Researchers pulled out the top third of high risk offenders in three birth cohorts and simulated the effects of effective services Mark Lipsey had identified in his meta-analyses, and applied an average effect of 30% reduction for the best programs. What is shown here is the change that would have occurred in the three birth cohorts’ criminal careers had the evidence-based services been applied beginning years ago. The top line is what transpired without any intervention services. The bottom line is projected outcomes had the high risk youth received the evidence-based services that Mark identified during adolescence. The percentage reduction in serious delinquents at age is about 25%. Other results (not shown in this figure) indicate that the intervention was also associated with a 20% decrease in arrests, a 35% lower prevalence of homicide offenders and victims, and a 29% reduction in the weeks of incarceration. (Loeber, Farrington, Howell, & Hoeve, 2012, p What a huge impact these outcomes represent! But it’s not a modest goal: changing the age-crime curve. In the state of Washington: “Approximately 6% of the drop in crime rates can be explained from the investments in evidence-based programs. In addition, we estimated that there are approximately 1,000 fewer people in prison as a result of the cumulative effective of Washington’s evidence-based program portfolio” (Drake, 2012, pp ). “In 2010, approximately 30% of youth who were eligible [for an evidence-based program], according to the juvenile court assessment, participated in a state-funded evidence-based program” (p. 112). 32

How will we know what services worked best to reduce the age-crime curve?
Performance measures SPEP program ratings An associated recidivism analysis Statewide recidivism analysis using a systems approach (next slide)

Prevention Programs Arrest Level of Supervision Intervention Programs
Recidivism Outcomes T% Counsel & release Program A U% Program B V% Diversion; Informal probation Prevention Programs Arrest Program C W% Program D X% Probation Program E Y% Incarceration “Systems” approach– sorting juveniles into levels of supervision (public safety, control) and programs (rehab) to optimize the system for total reduction of reoffending. Balloons show the places where we can bring evidence to bear to help optimize. Each of these is talked about in turn in the subsequent slides. Program F Z% Total Reoffense Rate

Thank you! Questions? Comments?
Contact Information: Buddy Howell Managing Partner Comprehensive Strategy Group, LLC Ph:

Using Research and Evidence-Based Services to Reduce the Age-Crime Curve in North Carolina Buddy Howell Area Consultants Retreat Atlantic Beach Trinity.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Using Research and Evidence-Based Services to Reduce the Age-Crime Curve in North Carolina Buddy Howell Area Consultants Retreat Atlantic Beach Trinity."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Using Research and Evidence-Based Services to Reduce the Age-Crime Curve in North Carolina Buddy Howell Area Consultants Retreat Atlantic Beach Trinity.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Using Research and Evidence-Based Services to Reduce the Age-Crime Curve in North Carolina Buddy Howell Area Consultants Retreat Atlantic Beach Trinity."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback