Juvenile Crime Prevention Evaluation Phase 2 Interim Report Findings in Brief

1. Oregon Criminal Justice Commission Juvenile Crime Prevention Evaluation Phase 2 Interim Report Findings in Brief April 2003

2. Enabling legislation: SB 555 (1999) • The purpose of JCP is to prevent and reduce juvenile crime • JCP programs utilize research and evidence-based practices • These practices target youth with 2 or more of the following factors that put them at risk for juvenile crime: • Antisocial behavior • Poor family functioning or support • Failure in school • Substance abuse problems • Negative peer association

3. The JCP approach aims to reduce juvenile crime and associated risk factors: It is working to reduce risk and increase protective factors for targeted youth

4. JCP provides research-based prevention services to youth at high risk for delinquency, and their families • Youth must have multiple risk factors for juvenile delinquency • Communities fund services based on local needs, within guidelines set by JCPAC • Services include direct interventions, case management, and resources to help families meet basic needs

5. Research basis of JCP • Over 40 years of research document effective strategies to prevent and reduce juvenile crime • U.S. Department of Justice; U.S. Surgeon General (2001) • University of Maryland (Gottfredson) • Washington State Institute for Public Policy • Loeber & Farrington; Hawkins & Catalano; Latessa • Oregon Social Learning Center (Reid, Patterson, Walker) • IVDB (Walker et al.) • Research converges on same findings: interventions targeting risk factors for juvenile delinquency reduce juvenile crime

6. Juvenile Crime Prevention: Oregon’s model • Basic Services and High-Risk Prevention Services • All 36 counties participating; working with 9 tribes in development of tribal JCP plans • Different interventions based on local needs, but all are research based and target the five areas that put youth at risk for involvement in juvenile crime

7. High Risk Youth Identified Intermediate Outcomes: Risks Decreased; Protective Factors Increased JCP Interventions Basic and Diversion Services High Level Outcomes Reduce Juvenile Arrests Reduce Juvenile Recidivism Stay within OYA bed limit

8. JCP interventions target risk factors for juvenile crime Examples from local plans: • Clackamas County: parent training, substance abuse treatment • Jackson County: tutoring, intensive parenting program • Malheur County: multi-dimensional services • Multnomah County: early intervention for youth 11 years and younger with a law violation, residential drug and alcohol treatment • Yamhill County: family functional therapy, truancy program

9. JCP programs are reaching the right youth • JCP provides interventions for youth at high risk of delinquency • Almost 5,000 youth were enrolled in JCP high-risk prevention services in the first year of this biennium (7/1/01 – 6/30/02) • Participating juveniles have issues in an average of 3 of the 5 risk areas

10. Who is being served? • Males: 66% ; Females: 34% • Average age 14 years (range 7-18) • White: 70%; Latino: 11.4%; Black: 4.3%; Native American: 3%; Asian: 1.1%; Multi: 1.9%; Other/Unknown: 8.3%

11. Who is being served? • Youth have multiple risk domains that need to be targeted • Many youth have multiple indicators within each risk domain • 27.8% of youth were rated as having a serious mental health issue

12. Juveniles have issues in multiple domains that put them at risk of delinquency • Antisocial behavior • Poor family functioning or support • Failure in school • Substance abuse problems • Negative peer association

13. High Risk Youth Identified JCP Interventions Intermediate Outcomes: Risks Decreased; Protective Factors Increased Basic and Diversion Services High Level Outcomes Reduce Juvenile Arrests Reduce Juvenile Recidivism Stay within OYA bed limit

14. Results • JCP youth had reduced risk for delinquency • Reductions were seen in all 16 risk indicators

15. JCP reduces risk for delinquency • By youth: • Youth had an average of 43% fewer risk indicators after JCP services • By risk indicators: • Reductions ranged from 15% to 88% • Particularly large reductions were seen in the anti-social behavior area (72% to 86%)

16. JCP reduces risk for delinquency

17. Examples of reductions in risk indicators

18. Changes in Risk Factors

19. JCP protects against delinquency • Youth who participated in JCP programs had increases in protective indicators • All 10 protective indicators increased over time • Improvements ranged from 32% to 79%

20. JCP increases protective indicators

21. High Risk Youth Identified JCP Interventions Intermediate Outcomes: Risks Decreased; Protective Factors Increased Basic and Diversion Services High Level Outcomes Reduce Juvenile Arrests Reduce Juvenile Recidivism Stay within OYA bed limit

22. JCP High-Level Outcomes • Reduce Juvenile Arrests • Reduce Juvenile Recidivism • Stay within Oregon Youth Authority Bed Limit

23. Juvenile Criminal Referral Rate by Year

24. Percent of high risk non-offenders with a subsequent first referral within 12 months

25. Reduce Juvenile Recidivism • Recidivism for JCP participants is lower than other juvenile offenders • The offenses of JCP program youth were less serious and less frequent than before their JCP intervention. • There has been a reduction in the recidivism rate of first time offenders.

26. Pre-Post Comparison of Criminal OffendingPercent of juvenile department referrals with criminal referral 12 months before and 12 months after enrollment in JCP Prevention services

27. Re-offending by Youth with Prior Criminal Referrals: JCP Youth, Compared to Youth Offenders Statewide

28. Demonstrated Benefits of JCP • Reductions in youth problem behaviors and other risk factors that put youth at higher risk of juvenile justice involvement • Increases in protective factors that prevent youth from juvenile justice involvement • Increased public safety due to reductions in juvenile recidivism