1 / 26

Can Mental Health Services Reduce Juvenile Justice Involvement? Non-Experimental Evidence

Can Mental Health Services Reduce Juvenile Justice Involvement? Non-Experimental Evidence. E. Michael Foster School of Public Health, University of North Carolina & Methodology Center, Pennsylvania State University & Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. foster@pop.psu.edu.

mareo
Download Presentation

Can Mental Health Services Reduce Juvenile Justice Involvement? Non-Experimental Evidence

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Can Mental Health Services Reduce Juvenile Justice Involvement? Non-Experimental Evidence E. Michael Foster School of Public Health, University of North Carolina & Methodology Center, Pennsylvania State University & Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group

  2. foster@pop.psu.edu

  3. Outline • Background • Data: Fast Track Project • Methods • Why not regression? • Propensity scores and matching • Doubly robust estimation • Results

  4. Background • Youth with mental health problems are at greater risk of JJ involvement • Juvenile justice involvement may harm mental health • Variety of policy initiatives to link juvenile justice system and delivery of mental health services • Model programs exist that can reduce delinquency (MST) But, what about the “real world”?

  5. May become more difficult to conduct randomized trials Can we replicate an experiment with data collected in observational settings? The answer is “it depends”. Heckman and colleagues (1997+) identify several key factors • Are the covariates (for matching or adjusting) measured in the same way? With same (good) reliability? • Are the different groups in the same “market” or site? • Are there unmeasured confounders?

  6. Fast Track • 10-year intervention project to prevent chronic conduct disorder in high risk youth • Schools randomly assigned to intervention & control conditions • Community-level, school-level, family-level, child-level data • Parental report of mental health services (in-patient and out-patient)

  7. Study Sample • 3 cohorts in poor areas of 4 sites (3 urban, 1 rural) • High-risk youth: • Multi-stage screening involving Parent and Teachers • Generally top 20% in terms of combined risk • Intervention group (n=445) • Comparison group (n=446) • Randomly sampled youth (control schools) (n=308)

  8. Big Picture: What did I do? • Work hard to avoid using linear regression to avoid extrapolating across groups • Application • Outcome: parental report of arrests in grades 9 or 10.* • Predicted by service use in grades 6, 7 or 8 • Individuals matched based on characteristics in grade 6 and earlier

  9. Methods • Problems with regression

  10. Methods (cont) • Propensity scores as an alternative • Avoid restrictions of linear model both in estimating • the propensity score and • the outcome model • Careful checking of balance of covariates

  11. Steps • Estimate propensity scores [ P(used services)] using neural networks • Problems in academic, social, peer and home domains (years 5 and 6) • Family demographics (mother’s age at first birth and education, biological dad in household) (baseline) • Use the pscores to match individuals (rather than as a weight or covariate)

  12. Steps (cont) • Refine matching based on key variables • Parent and teacher reports of behavior problems at baseline • Parental report of police contact at year 7 • Diagnosis of conduct disorder at years 4 or 7 • Exact matching required for key variables • Race (black v. other) • Gender • Site

  13. Steps (cont) • Matching done with replacement (Better matching units used repeatedly.) • Non-matching units discarded • Finally, covariates used as covariates in analysis of outcomes (“doubly robust”)

  14. Results • Basic Descriptives • Provide matched and adjusted comparisons

  15. Descriptives Variable | Obs Mean Std. Dev. Min Max -------------+-------------------------------------------------------- serv | 740 .3608108 .4805606 0 1 diag | 740 .1675676 .3737344 0 1 arrest | 740 .0662162 .2488278 0 1

  16. Adjusting and Matching • 270 non-users didn’t match a user • 50 of the remaining 203 non-users were used multiple times (generally twice) • These individuals were weighted in subsequent analyses So, how did we do in balancing the covariates?

  17. Alternative Estimates

  18. Discussion • What else could we have measured better or at all? Maybe what matters more than quantity of covariates is their quality. • Perhaps the outcome here is washed away by other forces • Perhaps a different outcome measure would show stronger effects Perhaps repeated or severe offenses (e.g., violent crimes against persons)

  19. Discussion • Perhaps not all mental health services are created equal • Maybe the results are true We need to know more about the content of treatment. • Methodologically, doubly robust appears beneficial

More Related