100 likes | 213 Views
Evaluating Reform to the Handling of Crossover Youth in California: AB 129. Association for Criminal Justice Research October 20, 2005. Presentation Overview. Status of AB129 implementation Challenges that counties have posed Technical assistance to the courts
E N D
Evaluating Reform to the Handling of Crossover Youth in California: AB 129 Association for Criminal Justice Research October 20, 2005
Presentation Overview • Status of AB129 implementation • Challenges that counties have posed • Technical assistance to the courts • Overview of evaluation requirements • Overview of evaluation plans
Where are we? • Many counties working toward signed protocol • Many questions and challenges have been posed regarding implementation • AOC sponsored symposium
Major challenges • Allocation of responsibilities among court and agency • Resources • Information sharing • How to identify and screen for appropriate cases • ASFA issues • Determining the most effective model • Net widening • Obtaining the data required for the evaluation
Technical assistance to address challenges • 27 counties attended AOC sponsored symposium on June 20th in San Francisco. • California Department of Social Services working on “All County Letter” • Workshop at the Beyond the Bench conference in December • Data collection and evaluation consultation
Protocol must contain plan to collect data • Description of eligibility process • Description of assessment process • Ensure communication between dependency and delinquency judges 4. Plan to collect data in order to evaluate the protocol pursuant to Section 241.2
W&I 241.2: legislatively mandated • Report to legislature on implementation of protocols • Use representative sample of counties that create protocol • Report findings within two years of first child being deemed dual status • Counties must include plan for collecting required data in protocol
Two-pronged approach to evaluation • Descriptive component for all counties • Taxonomy of protocols • Case characteristics and hearing outcome for all cases that fall under protocol • In-depth/outcome-focused component with a sample of counties (”study counties”)
Study county evaluation • Four to six counties • Mix of large/small, urban/rural • Mix of models • Additional descriptive data elements • Child and family outcomes • Impacts on courts and agencies • No design yet—need to first understand how implemented • Collaborative research design
AOC contact information Audrey Fancy, Senior Attorney 415-865-7706 audrey.fancy@jud.ca.gov Michelle Diamond, Research Analyst 415-865-7569 michelle.diamond@jud.ca.gov