Survey of County & State Juvenile Justice Intervention Practices

1. Survey of County & State Juvenile Justice Intervention Practices Karen Hennigan, Kathy Kolnick and the USC Research Team in collaboration with the JJDP Work Group with funding from the JEHT Foundation Juvenile Justice Data Project A Partnership to Improve State and Local Outcomes

2. Introduction JJDP project overview Survey purpose

3. Juvenile Justice Data Project Origins • 2004 Governor’s Juvenile Justice Task Force • Focuses on consensus recommendations • Collaboration among a broad group of stakeholders in the juvenile justice system

4. JJDP Primary Goal • Improve outcomes for California Juvenile Justice System • Two initiatives funded by JEHT Foundation

5. JJDP First Initiative • Describe the continuum of interventions, placement and confinement in use • How do common practices relate to evidence-based practices?

6. JJDP Second Initiative • What do we know about JJ system outcomes now? • Can we reach a consensus on what outcomes should be targeted? • How can we measure them?

7. First Initiative: Objective One • Describe the continuum in 58 county juvenile justice systems and DJJ. • Do they fit a common framework? • What are the similarities and differences? • What are some reasons for variation?

8. First Initiative: Objective Two • How do common practices relate to evidence-based practices? • Are we choosing intervention models that work? • Do we know what is actually delivered? • Are we using the risk principle? • What outcomes we are targeting now?

9. Survey Methods Guiding principles Graduated intervention definitions Survey procedures and schedule Participation Appreciation

10. Continuum of graduated responses: Programs and interventions are categorized by level Evidence-based practices: Key elements included to allow comparison with existing evidence base Guiding Principles

11. Continuum of Graduated Responses

12. Surveying Procedures and Schedule • Piloted with help of 6 counties in March 2006 • Conducted over 7 months from April-October 2006 • County personnel contacted by telephone, fax and email by USC research team • Throughout data collection process, counties received copies of data to review, clarify, augment and correct responses

13. Participation • Very high level of participation was achieved in this comprehensive survey • 55 of 58 counties completed at least one section • 50 counties & DJJ completed entire survey for snapshot

14. Survey Findings Continuum County practices Variability Evidence-based practices

15. Continuum: Levels of Involvement Statewide

16. Description is based on rates State Rate of involvement in RG? State Rate of RG = 1404 per 100,000 This rate is weighted by population

17. Description is based on rates Median County Rate of involvement in RG? For RG the county rates vary from 181 to 10,158 Median = 1383 Median county rates reflect county practices Each county has equal weight

18. State Rates Across the Continuum

19. Median County Rates Across the Continuum

20. County Practices Large or small, urban or rural, north or south… the response from each county has the same weight

21. Variability in County Rates of Involvement(per 100,000 juvenile population in each county)

22. Variability in County Rates of Involvement(per 100,000 juvenile population in each county)

23. Variability in County Rates of Involvement(per 100,000 juvenile population in each county)

24. Median County Rates by County Size Detail: Placement to DJJ

25. Median County Rates by Region Detail: Placement to DJJ

26. Other Variables Examined • Rural vs. Urban Rural is associated with higher rates of RG, PL (not RCL 12-14) and lower rates of camp (CC) • Rate of Juvenile Felony Arrests Higher felony arrest rates associated with higher DJJ rates • Wealth (median household income) Less wealth associated with higher rates of RG, PL (especially FC), DT (OD), and DJJ • County Probation Resources Higher resources associated with higher rates of PL (especially FC and RCL 12 or higher) Lower resources lower rates of AC, post disposition DT What about availability of camps and group homes?

27. Local Availability of Camps 1mediancounty rates

28. Local Availability of Camps 1 mediancounty rates

29. Local Availability of Camps 1 mediancounty rates

30. Practices: Moving toward evidence-based What have we learned? Recommendations Next steps

31. Assessing Risk

34. Outcome Criteria

35. Outcome Time Frame

36. Recommendations Next steps Moving forward

37. Ways thatCalifornia Juvenile JusticeCan Move Forward • Match juveniles with effective programs through the use of validated multi-factor risk assessments • Monitor the content, intensity and duration of interventions actually received • Reach a consensus on outcomes to target • Track targeted outcomes within counties and regions

38. Next Steps... JJDP Work Group Meeting If you would like to attend: When: Wednesday, April 18th 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Lunch provided Location: Sierra Health Foundation 1321 Garden Highway, Sacramento RSVP: Mamie Yee (415) 543-3379 ext. 3914

39. Keeping momentum... JJDP is appreciative of the high level of support given by the counties and DJJ to this project Our goal is to work together to improve outcomes in the California Juvenile Justice System