Probation Evaluation, Assessment, and Cost-Effectiveness ...€¦ · FAST FACTS Probation Evaluation, Assessment, and Cost-Effectiveness (PEACE) Study Background: In 2005, the San

PROBATION EVALUATION, ASSESSMENT, AND COST-

EFFECTIVENESS (PEACE) STUDY FINAL REPORT

OCTOBER 2008

Cynthia Burke, Ph.D. Darlanne Hoctor Mulmat, M.A.

Kristen Rohanna, M.A. Grace Liwanag, M.A.

Liz Doroski Amy Murphy, M.P.P.

401 B Street, Suite 800 • San Diego, CA 92101-4231 • (619) 699-1900

ii Probation Evaluation, Assessment, and Cost-Effectiveness Study

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

The 18 cities and county government are SANDAG serving as the forum for regional decision-making. SANDAG builds consensus; plans, engineers, and builds public transit; makes strategic plans; obtains and allocates

resources; and provides information on a broad range of topics pertinent to the region’s quality of life.

CHAIR Hon. Mary Teresa Sessom

FIRST VICE CHAIR Hon. Lori Holt Pfeiler

SECOND VICE CHAIR Hon. Jerome Stocks

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Gary L. Gallegos

CITY OF CARLSBAD Hon. Matt Hall, Councilmember (A) Hon. Bud Lewis, Mayor (A) Hon. Ann Kulchin, Mayor Pro Tem

CITY OF CHULA VISTA Hon. Cheryl Cox, Mayor (A) Hon. Jerry Rindone, Deputy Mayor (A) Hon. John McCann, Councilmember

CITY OF CORONADO Hon. Phil Monroe, Councilmember (A) Hon. Carrie Downey, Mayor Pro Tem (A) Hon. Al Ovrom, Councilmember

CITY OF DEL MAR Hon. Crystal Crawford, Deputy Mayor (A) Hon. David Druker, Mayor (A) Hon. Richard Earnest, Councilmember

CITY OF EL CAJON Hon. Mark Lewis, Mayor (A) Hon. Jillian Hanson-Cox, Councilmember

CITY OF ENCINITAS Hon. Jerome Stocks, Mayor (A) Hon. Teresa Barth, Councilmember

CITY OF ESCONDIDO Hon. Lori Holt Pfeiler, Mayor (A) Hon. Ed Gallo, Councilmember (A) Hon. Sam Abed, Mayor Pro Tem

CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH Hon. Jim Janney, Mayor (A) Hon. Patricia McCoy, Mayor Pro Tem (A) Hon. Mayda Winter, Councilmember

CITY OF LA MESA Hon. Art Madrid, Mayor (A) Hon. Mark Arapostathis, Councilmember (A) Hon. David Allan, Councilmember

CITY OF LEMON GROVE Hon. Mary Teresa Sessom, Mayor (A) Hon. Jerry Jones, Councilmember (A) Hon. Jerry Selby, Mayor Pro Tem

CITY OF NATIONAL CITY Hon. Ron Morrison, Mayor (A) Hon. Frank Parra, Vice Mayor (A) Hon. Louie Natividad, Councilmember

CITY OF OCEANSIDE Hon. Jim Wood, Mayor (A) Hon. Jerry Kern, Councilmember (A) Hon. Jack Feller, Councilmember

CITY OF POWAY Hon. Mickey Cafagna, Mayor (A) Hon. Robert Emery, Deputy Mayor (A) Hon. Don Higginson, Councilmember

CITY OF SAN DIEGO Hon. Jerry Sanders, Mayor Hon. Jim Madaffer, Council President Pro Tem (A) Hon. Anthony Young, Councilmember (A) Hon. Scott Peters, Council President (A) Hon. Toni Atkins, Councilmember (A) Hon. Ben Hueso, Councilmember

CITY OF SAN MARCOS Hon. Jim Desmond, Mayor (A) Hon. Hal Martin, Vice Mayor (A) Hon. Rebecca Jones, Councilmember

CITY OF SANTEE Hon. Jack Dale, Councilmember (A) Hon. Hal Ryan, Councilmember (A) Hon. John Minto, Councilmember

CITY OF SOLANA BEACH Hon. Lesa Heebner, Councilmember (A) Hon. Dave Roberts, Mayor (A) Hon. Mike Nichols, Deputy Mayor

CITY OF VISTA Hon. Judy Ritter, Councilmember (A) Hon. Bob Campbell, Councilmember (A) Hon. Steve Gronke, Councilmember

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO Hon. Greg Cox, Chairman (A) Hon. Pam Slater-Price, Chair Pro Tem (A) Hon. Ron Roberts, Supervisor Hon. Dianne Jacob, Vice Chairwoman (A) Hon. Bill Horn, Supervisor

IMPERIAL COUNTY (Advisory Member) Hon. Victor Carrillo, Supervisor (A) Hon. David Ouzan, Councilmember

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (Advisory Member) Will Kempton, Director (A) Pedro Orso-Delgado, District 11 Director

METROPOLITAN TRANSIT SYSTEM (Advisory Member) Harry Mathis, Chairman (A) Hon. Jerry Rindone, Vice Chairman (A) Hon. Robert Emery, Chair Pro Tem

NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT (Advisory Member) Hon. Ed Gallo, Chairman (A) Hon. Jerome Stocks, Planning Committee Chair (A) Hon. Chris Orlando, Monitoring Committee Chair

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (Advisory Member) CAPT Steve Wirsching, USN, CEC, Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command (A) CAPT Robert Farley, USN, CEC Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command

SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT (Advisory Member) Laurie Black, Commissioner (A) Michael Najera, Commissioner

SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY (Advisory Member) Marilyn Dailey, Commissioner (A) Mark Muir, Commissioner (A) Gary Croucher, Commissioner

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TRIBAL CHAIRMEN’S ASSOCIATION (Advisory Member) Chairman Robert Smith (Pala), SCTCA Chair (A) Chairman Allen Lawson (San Pasqual)

MEXICO (Advisory Member) Hon. Remedios Gómez-Arnau Cónsul General of Mexico

As of July 16, 2008

Probation Evaluation, Assessment, and Cost-Effectiveness Study iii

ABSTRACT

TITLE: Probation Evaluation, Assessment, and Cost-Effectiveness Study (PEACE) Final Report

AUTHORS: Cynthia Burke, Ph.D., Darlanne Hoctor Mulmat, M.A.,

Kristen Rohanna, M.A., Grace Liwanag, M.A., Liz Doroski, and Amy Murphy, M.P.P.

DATE: October 2008

SOURCE OF

COPIES: SANDAG 401 B Street, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 699-1900

ABSTRACT: As a part of ongoing efforts to improve service delivery, theSan Diego County Public Safety Group and ProbationDepartment identified the need to examine the effectiveness of local Probation commitment programs. To assist in thiseffort, the Probation Department contracted with the SanDiego Association of Governments (SANDAG) to conduct aseries of three projects to assess service delivery and the cost-benefit of local institutional placement at the Juvenile RanchFacility and Camp Barrett. This final report includes a description of the research methodology, as well as findingsfrom the program analysis and recidivism study conducted by SANDAG’s Criminal Justice Research Division. The costanalysis also is presented, as well as additional information about promising practices to guide Probation in filling servicegaps. Immediate, short-term, and long-term recommendations are made, and a list of action items (planned and in progress) from the Probation Departmentalso is included.

iv Probation Evaluation, Assessment, and Cost-Effectiveness Study

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This report is the result of collaboration between the San Diego County Probation Department and the Criminal Justice Research Division of SANDAG. Special thanks are extended to Probation staff members that have assisted SANDAG with collecting information and reviewing this report. These include Mack Jenkins, Chief of Probation; Dr. Ann Sasaki-Madigan, Deputy Chief of Institutions; Dan DeLeon, Director of the Juvenile Ranch Facility; Jim Seal, Director of Camp Barrett; Brian Clement, Programmer/Analyst IV; Karen Crudgington, Senior Clerk; Marilyn Kirk, Senior Clerk; Jude Mattsson, Records Clerk; Dr. Natalie Pearl, Director of the Research Unit, and Gina Surgeon; Fiscal Manager of Revenue and Recovery. In addition, the production of this report would not have been possible without the assistance of SANDAG staff, including Alicia Isla, Sandy Keaton, Gwen Kruger, Laura Litvinoff, Casey Mackereth, Cristina Magaña, Amy Murphy, and Sylvia Sievers.

Probation Evaluation, Assessment, and Cost-Effectiveness Study v

FAST FACTS

Probation Evaluation, Assessment, and Cost-Effectiveness (PEACE) Study

Background: In 2005, the San Diego County Probation Department contracted with SANDAG to conduct an evaluation of two local commitment programs for juvenile males adjudicated as wards of the court – the Juvenile Ranch Facility (JRF) and Camp Barrett. The following presents highlights from the final report, describing a sample of youth who entered these facilities between August 2005 and May 2006. More detailed information about the study design, qualitative findings, and conclusions and recommendations are available at www.sandag.org/cj.

Juvenile Ranch Facility Camp Barrett

A dormitory-style residential program with an average daily population of 145 male youth between the ages of 12 and 17½. Youth are committed to JRF as part of Breaking Cycles, the STOP program, or other means, such as Drug Court.

The only minimum-security, local placement option for youth between the ages of 16½ and 18 at the time of commitment who have a history of failed placements or serious offenses.

What were these 238 youth like at intake? What were these 160 youth like at intake?

Average age 15½ 55% Hispanic 21 risk and 5 protective factors at intake (both out of 30) 2 sustained petitions for a new offense

Average age 17 56% Hispanic 22 risk and 4 protective factors at intake (both out of 30) 3 sustained petitions for a new offense

What did a commitment involve? What did a commitment involve?

STOP youth stayed average of 2 weeks; Breaking Cycles 10 weeks

Services address substance use, education, mental health, aggression, and family

20-week average stay Services address substance use, education, mental health, aggression, and family, as well as work readiness

What happened to youth one year after exiting? What happened to youth one year after exiting?

40% arrest-free 60% had no new sustained petition 37% had a lower risk score 63% had a probation violation

38% arrest-free 52% had no new sustained petition 53% had a lower risk score 23% had a probation violation

How does Camp Barrett compare to a state

commitment? It is more cost-effective; the California State Department of

Juvenile Justice would have to be one and a half to three times more effective to yield same return to the taxpayer

vi Probation Evaluation, Assessment, and Cost-Effectiveness Study

[THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

Probation Evaluation, Assessment, and Cost-Effectiveness Study vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 3

Highlights......................................................................................................................................... 3

Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 3

Projects I and II ................................................................................................................................ 4

Project III .......................................................................................................................................... 8

Recommendations........................................................................................................................... 9

Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 12

PROBATION RESPONSE.......................................................................................................................... 13

JRF – Immediate............................................................................................................................... 15

JRF – Short-Term.............................................................................................................................. 15

JRF – Long-Term .............................................................................................................................. 16

Camp Barrett – Immediate ............................................................................................................. 17

Camp Barrett – Short-Term............................................................................................................. 17

Camp Barrett – Long-Term ............................................................................................................. 18

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT BACKGROUND .............................................................. 1-1

Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1-1

Description of San Diego County Juvenile Facilities ..................................................................... 1-2

Juvenile Ranch Facility ............................................................................................................... 1-3

Camp Barrett .............................................................................................................................. 1-7

Report Overview.............................................................................................................................. 1-12

CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY............................................................................................. 2-1

Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 2-1

Project Descriptions......................................................................................................................... 2-2

Project I: Program Analysis ........................................................................................................ 2-2

Project II: Recidivism Study ........................................................................................................ 2-7

Project III: Cost-Benefit Analysis ................................................................................................ 2-10

Possible Study Limitations .............................................................................................................. 2-21

Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 2-22

CHAPTER 3: PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND RECIDIVISM: JUVENILE RANCH FACILITY ........................... 3-1

Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 3-1

Major Findings................................................................................................................................. 3-1

Sample Description ......................................................................................................................... 3-2

viii Probation Evaluation, Assessment, and Cost-Effectiveness Study

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT’D)

CHAPTER 3: PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND RECIDIVISM: JUVENILE RANCH FACILITY (CONT’D)

Sample Description (cont’d)

Demographics and Other Characteristics ................................................................................. 3-2

Criminal History .......................................................................................................................... 3-3

Needs Assessment....................................................................................................................... 3-5

Information Regarding Placement................................................................................................. 3-9

Services Received............................................................................................................................. 3-10

Change in Needs Over Time ........................................................................................................... 3-13

Desistance Following Release......................................................................................................... 3-15

Probation Compliance................................................................................................................ 3-17

Peers and Recidivism .................................................................................................................. 3-19

Predicting Recidivism Following Release....................................................................................... 3-19

Impact of Time on Recidivism Following Release ......................................................................... 3-21

Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 3-22

CHAPTER 4: PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND RECIDIVISM: CAMP BARRETT.............................................. 4-1

Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 4-1

Major Findings................................................................................................................................. 4-1


Criminal History .......................................................................................................................... 4-2

Needs Assessment....................................................................................................................... 4-4

Information Regarding Placement................................................................................................. 4-7

Services Received............................................................................................................................. 4-8

Change in Needs Over Time ........................................................................................................... 4-10

Desistance Following Release......................................................................................................... 4-12

Probation Compliance................................................................................................................ 4-14

Peers and Recidivism .................................................................................................................. 4-15

Predicting Recidivism Following Release....................................................................................... 4-16

Recividism Based on Re-arrest ................................................................................................... 4-16

Recividism Based on True Findings ........................................................................................... 4-16

Impact of Time on Recidivism Following Release ......................................................................... 4-17

Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 4-19

CHAPTER 5: YOUTH PERCEPTIONS ....................................................................................................... 5-1

Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 5-1

Major Findings................................................................................................................................. 5-1

Interview Process ............................................................................................................................. 5-1


Interview Results ............................................................................................................................. 5-2

Probation Evaluation, Assessment, and Cost-Effectiveness Study ix


CHAPTER 5: YOUTH PERCEPTIONS (CONT’D)

Interview Results (cont’d)

Detention Experience................................................................................................................. 5-2

Release/Re-Entry Experience...................................................................................................... 5-9

Current Life Situation................................................................................................................. 5-10

Substance Use ............................................................................................................................. 5-23

Prospects for the Future............................................................................................................. 5-24

Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 5-25

CHAPTER 6: PROGRAM STAFF PERCEPTIONS....................................................................................... 6-1

Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 6-1

Major Findings................................................................................................................................. 6-1

General Staff Survey ....................................................................................................................... 6-1

Survey Description\..................................................................................................................... 6-1

Sample Description..................................................................................................................... 6-2

Survey Results ............................................................................................................................. 6-2

In-Depth Staff Survey...................................................................................................................... 6-5

Survey Description...................................................................................................................... 6-5

Sample Description..................................................................................................................... 6-5

Survey Results ............................................................................................................................. 6-5

Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 6-12

CHAPTER 7: PROMISING PROGRAMS ................................................................................................... 7-1

Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 7-1

Standards for Effective Practices .................................................................................................... 7-1

Overall Elements Considered Best Practices .................................................................................. 7-2

Description of Programs ................................................................................................................. 7-3

Academics ................................................................................................................................... 7-3

Aftercare ..................................................................................................................................... 7-5

Aggression Reduction ................................................................................................................ 7-5

Criminality................................................................................................................................... 7-6

Detention Reform: General ....................................................................................................... 7-7

Detention Reform: Risk Assessment Guided Detention Decisions.......................................... 7-8

Detention Reform: Community Justice..................................................................................... 7-8

Family Focused Interventions .................................................................................................... 7-9

Mental Health Treatment.......................................................................................................... 7-11

Re-Entry....................................................................................................................................... 7-17

Substance Use ............................................................................................................................. 7-18

Use of Force by Corrections ....................................................................................................... 7-20

Work Readiness .......................................................................................................................... 7-21

Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 7-24

x Probation Evaluation, Assessment, and Cost-Effectiveness Study


CHAPTER 8: COST EFFECTIVENESS ........................................................................................................ 8-1

Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 8-1

Major Findings................................................................................................................................. 8-1

Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 8-1

Costs ............................................................................................................................................ 8-2

Benefits (Cost Offsets or Savings).............................................................................................. 8-2

Study Limitations............................................................................................................................. 8-3

Cost-Benefit Analysis Results .......................................................................................................... 8-4

Sensitivity Analysis...................................................................................................................... 8-5

Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 8-10 CHAPTER 9: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................... 9-1

Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 9-1

Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................... 9-1

Juvenile Ranch Facility ............................................................................................................... 9-1

Camp Barrett .............................................................................................................................. 9-2

Costs and Benefits ...................................................................................................................... 9-2

Youth Perspective....................................................................................................................... 9-2

Staff Perspective ......................................................................................................................... 9-2

Recommendations........................................................................................................................... 9-3

Immediate................................................................................................................................... 9-3

Short-Term .................................................................................................................................. 9-4

Long-Term................................................................................................................................... 9-5

APPENDIX A – BACKGROUND TABLES................................................................................................ A-1

APPENDIX B – COST DATA................................................................................................................... B-1

APPENDIX C – MAP .............................................................................................................................. C-1

APPENDIX D – REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. D-1

Probation Evaluation, Assessment, and Cost-Effectiveness Study xi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1 Description of JRF and Camp Barrett, July 2005 through December 2007 ...................... 1-2

Table 1.2 Monthly Average Number of Services Provided at JRF and Camp Barrett, July 2005 through December 2007 ..................................................................................... 1-4

Table 2.1 In-Custody Programming by Risk/Protective Domain........................................................ 2-5

Table 2.2 Staff Survey Samples ............................................................................................................2-11

Table 3.1 Violation Type for Highest Sustained Petition, Juvenile Ranch Facility Sample.............. 3-5

Table 3.2 Needs and Match with Services Received, Juvenile Ranch Facility Sample......................3-11

Table 3.3 Services Received by Commitment Type, Juvenile Ranch Facility Sample........................3-12

Table 3.4 Justice System Contact Post Release, Juvenile Ranch Facility Sample ..............................3-16

Table 3.5 Proportion OF Justice Outcomes with Reduced Severity, Juvenile Ranch Facility Sample............................................................................................3-17

Table 3.6 Probation Compliance, Juvenile Ranch Facility Sample ....................................................3-18

Table 3.7 True Findings Twelve Months Following Release by Predictor Variables, Juvenile Ranch Facility Sample............................................................................................3-21

Table 4.1 Violation Type for Highest Sustained Petition, Camp Barrett Current Sample ............... 4-4

Table 4.2 Needs and Match with Services Received, Camp Barrett Current Sample ....................... 4-9

Table 4.3 Justice System Contact Post Release, Camp Barrett Current Sample................................4-13

Table 4.4 Proportion of Justice Outcomes with Reduced Severity, Camp Barrett Current Sample .............................................................................................4-13

Table 4.5 Probation Compliance, Camp Barrett Current Sample......................................................4-15

Table 5.1 Rating of Environmental Conditions .................................................................................. 5-3

Table 5.2 Services Received in Custody ............................................................................................... 5-6

Table 5.3 Positive View of Facility Staff .............................................................................................. 5-8

Table 5.4 Neighborhood Characteristics .............................................................................................5-11

Table 5.5 Parental Involvement with Friends .....................................................................................5-14

Table 5.6 Parental Knowledge of Youth’s Activities..........................................................................5-15

Table 5.7 Family Meals Frequent for JRF Youth.................................................................................5-15

Table 5.8 Educational Status................................................................................................................5-19

Table 5.9 Opinions About School ........................................................................................................5-19

xii Probation Evaluation, Assessment, and Cost-Effectiveness Study

LIST OF TABLES (CONT’D)

Table 5.10 Self-Reported Grades and Attendance Compared to Period Before Incarceration ........5-20

Table 5.11 Employment Status ..............................................................................................................5-21

Table 5.12 Peer Behavior in Past 30 Days..............................................................................................5-22

Table 5.13 Social Supports .....................................................................................................................5-23

Table 5.14 Average Number of Days in Past Month Used Alcohol and Other Drugs........................5-24

Table 6.1 Staff Opinions....................................................................................................................... 6-4

Table 6.2 Training Received and Perceived as Helpful ...................................................................... 6-6

Table 6.3 Providers of Training............................................................................................................ 6-7

Table 6.4 Environmental Conditions ................................................................................................... 6-8

Table 6.5 Staff Perceived Predictors of Success ..................................................................................6-10

Table 6.6 Staff Familiarity with Programs and Perception of Effectiveness.....................................6-11

Table 7.1 Proven and Promising Programs by Need ..........................................................................7-23

Table 8.1 Base Case CYA Cohort Simulation Model........................................................................... 8-4

Table 8.2 Base Case Camp Barrett Cohort Simulation Model ........................................................... 8-5

Table A1 Services Provided at JRF and Camp Barrett; July 2005 through December 2007 ............ A-1

Table A2 In-Custody Programming by Risk/Protective Domain........................................................ A-2

Table A3 In-Custody Programming by Facility ................................................................................... A-4

Table A4 Staff Familiarity with Programs and Perception of Effectiveness by SDRRC Domain ................................................................................................................ A-5

Table A5 Promising Programs ............................................................................................................. A-6

Table B1 Crime Costs Per Offender for the Local Criminal Justice System ...................................... B-1

Table B2 Crime Costs for Victims ........................................................................................................ B-2

Table B3 Sliding Scale Fee Distribution, CYA Cohort, California, 2000 ........................................... B-3

Table B4 Sliding Scale Fee Distribution, Camp Barrett Cohort, Camp Barrett Sample, San Diego County, 2005....................................................................................................... B-3

Table B5 Distribution of Adult Felony Offenses, San Diego County, 2000...................................... B-4

Table B6 Time Served Model Parameters (Jail and Prison), CYA and Camp Barrett Cohort Simulation Models ............................................................................................................... B-5

Table B7 Time Served Model Parameters (Probation and Parole), CYA and CB Cohort Simulation Models ............................................................................................. B-6

Table B8 Additional Model Parameters, CYA and Camp Barrett Cohort Simulation Models........ B-7

Probation Evaluation, Assessment, and Cost-Effectiveness Study xiii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Cohort Simulation Model Steps, CYA Cohort...................................................................2-15

Figure 2.2 Cohort Simulation Model Steps, Camp Barrett Cohort ...................................................2-16

Figure 3.1 Juvenile Ranch Facility Sample and Population Ethnicity................................................ 3-2

Figure 3.2 Juvenile Ranch Facility Sample and Population Commitment Type ............................... 3-3

Figure 3.3 Prior Arrests, Referrals, and Sustained Petitions, Juvenile Ranch Facility Sample .......................................................................................... 3-4

Figure 3.4 Mean Assessment Scores at Intake, Juvenile Ranch Facility Sample............................... 3-6

Figure 3.5 Risk Factors by Domain at Intake, Juvenile Ranch Facility Sample ................................. 3-7

Figure 3.6 Protective Factors by Domain at Intake, Juvenile Ranch Facility Sample ....................... 3-8

Figure 3.7 Average Length of Stay (Days) by Commitment Type, Juvenile Ranch Facility Sample 3-10

Figure 3.8 Positive Change in Assessment Scores from Intake to Exit, Juvenile Ranch Facility Sample ..........................................................................................3-13

Figure 3.9 Assessment Scores at Intake and Exit, Juvenile Ranch Facility Sample...........................3-14

Figure 3.10 Percent with No New Arrests Twelve Months Following Release, Juvenile Ranch Facility Sample ..........................................................................................3-22

Figure 4.1 Camp Barrett Samples and Population Ethnicity ............................................................. 4-2

Figure 4.2 Prior Arrests, Referrals, and Sustained Petitions, Camp Barrett Current and Historical Samples ......................................................................................... 4-3

Figure 4.3 Assessment Scores at Intake, Camp Barrett Current Sample........................................... 4-5

Figure 4.4 Risk Factors by Domain at Intake, Camp Barrett Current Sample................................... 4-6

Figure 4.5 Protective Factors by Domain at Intake, Camp Barrett Current Sample ........................ 4-7

Figure 4.6 Positive Change in Assessment Scores from Intake to Exit, Camp Barrett Current Sample ...................................................................................................................4-11

Figure 4.7 Assessment Scores at Intake and Exit, Camp Barrett Current Sample ............................4-11

Figure 4.8 Percent with No New Arrests One Year Following Release, Camp Barrett Current Sample ...................................................................................................................4-18

Figure 5.1 Primary Caregiver One Year Post Release.........................................................................5-11

Figure 5.2 Frequency of Parental Interaction with Teachers ............................................................5-12

Figure 5.3 Frequency of Parental Review of Homework...................................................................5-13

xiv Probation Evaluation, Assessment, and Cost-Effectiveness Study

LIST OF FIGURES (CONT’D)

Figure 5.4 Youth Perception of Frequency of Parental Expressions of Pride...................................5-16

Figure 5.5 Strong Parental Bond .........................................................................................................5-17

Figure 5.6 Youth Perception of How Family Interaction Changed After Incarceration..................5-18

Figure 5.7 Self-Reported Current Grades............................................................................................5-20

Figure 8.1 CYA Cohort, Varying Recidivism Rates Model.................................................................. 8-6

Figure 8.2 Camp Barrett Cohort, Varying Recidivism Rates Model .................................................. 8-6

Figure 8.3 CYA Cohort, Varying Average Number of Felonies Model ............................................. 8-7

Figure 8.4 Camp Barrett Cohort, Varying Average Number of Felonies Model.............................. 8-8

Figure 8.5 CYA Cohort, Testing 90% Confidence Intervals of Number Not Reconvicted of a Felony Offense and Average Number of Felony Convictions Prevented................ 8-9

Figure 8.6 Camp Barrett Cohort, Testing 90% Confidence Intervals of Number Not Reconvicted of a Felony Offense and Average Number of Felony Convictions Prevented ............................................................................................................................8-10

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Probation Evaluation, Assessment, and Cost-Effectiveness Study 3

HIGHLIGHTS

Youth committed to both JRF and Camp Barrett have a lengthy history with the juvenile justice system, with low resiliency profiles (greater number of risk than protective factors).

One year following release from custody, over half of each sample had no sustained petitions for a new offense.

Facilities, staff, and in-custody programs were rated positively by youth; however, some variability in program delivery suggests the need to investigate ways to ensure fidelity for proven programs.

One year following release, many youth reported living in neighborhoods at high risk for delinquency. In addition, only one in four mentioned receiving aftercare services, suggesting an opportunity to further increase probability of reentry success.

Staff members at JRF and Camp Barrett indicated that the work environment and staff morale are positive.

Camp Barrett is more cost-effective than detaining youth at the state level. Specifically, state-run facilities would have to be one and a half to three times more effective than Camp Barrett to receive the same rate of return on taxpayer’s investments.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION The San Diego County Probation Department has a history of innovation related to juvenile justice. Over the years, a continuum of programs have been developed that range from prevention to intervention and graduated sanctions, with an emphasis on maintaining youth in the community rather than detention. However, sometimes criminal behavior persists despite community interventions or the severity of the offense requires removal from the community. In a commitment to be efficient stewards of taxpayers’ funds while also providing youth in the juvenile justice system with the most appropriate and effective services, the Department has placed a high priority on program evaluation. As a result, much is known about which community-based programs work in San Diego County to address juvenile delinquency, but the impact of in-custody programs in the continuum of interventions is less clear. Given this gap in knowledge, the Department contracted with the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) to examine the effectiveness of two local commitment facilities for male juvenile offenders: the Juvenile Ranch Facility (JRF) and Camp Barrett. To accomplish this endeavor, three separate, but related projects were conducted: a program analysis, recidivism study, and cost-benefit analysis. This final report provides the results from the three projects during the three-year evaluation.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

4 Probation Evaluation, Assessment, and Cost-Effectiveness Study

5 prior arrests

2 prior sustained petitions

High number of risk factors (21.24)

Low number of protective factors (4.70)

Average length of stay 56.39 days

JRF Youth Characteristics

Cognitive-Behavioral

Character Development

Literacy and Mandatory Academics

Mental Health Counseling

Parenting Skills

Substance Abuse Treatment

Highest match: individual needs (99%)

Lowest match: needs in the peer domain (51%)

Match Between Needs and JRF Services

Services Available in JRF

PROJECTS I AND II Juvenile Ranch Facility JRF is a drug/alcohol and behavioral rehabilitative facility for male wards of the Juvenile Court between the ages of 12 and 17½. During the study period (FY 2005-06 through FY 2007-08), the average daily attendance at JRF was 145. JRF youth can be committed to the facility through a number of different programs (e.g., Breaking Cycles, Short-Term Offender Program or STOP, or through other ways such as Drug Court) and are housed at one of three dorms: Rayo I, Rayo II, or Rancho del Campo. The Rayo dorms focus on treatment for substance use, with youth of similar maturity levels typically housed together, while Rancho del Campo concentrates on behavior modification. As part of the Program Analysis study (Project I), data were collected from archival sources for a random sample of youth who entered JRF between August 2005 and May 2006 to determine the characteristics and needs of these youth, as well as the services they received. On average, the youth in the JRF sample had a lengthy criminal history with a greater number of risk factors than protective factors in their lives, with the greatest need in the individual (e.g., no pro-social interests), delinquency (e.g., history of assaultive behavior), and peer (e.g., delinquent friends) domains. The average length of their current stay at JRF was 56.39 days, with this period of time related to commitment type. During their JRF commitment, youth were eligible to receive a number of services including substance abuse treatment, Aggression Replacement Training (ART), character enhancement, literacy training, mental health counseling, and parenting skills training, as well as support for their families.

Consistent service delivery was challenging at JRF, requiring program modification to accommodate funding and staffing constraints. However, it should be noted that positive changes have been made since this study sample was selected which may not necessarily be reflected here. The services received by youth in custody between August 2005 and December 2006 were examined in conjunction with the needs assessed through the San Diego Regional Resiliency Checkup (SDRRC). Programs in JRF addressed needs in the individual domain more often than any other domain, while needs in the peer domain were least likely to be addressed through existing programs. Less than half of

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


No new arrests: 40%

No new sustained petitions: 60%

Reduced severity: 82%

Days from release to re-arrest: 153

JRF Outcomes One Year Following Release

the youth received at least one visit from a family member while in JRF. Risk and protective factors, as well as overall resiliency, remained stable between intake and release from custody. This stability in risk, protective, and resiliency could be due to the short length of stay (i.e., less than two months). However, academic improvements were realized during the JRF stay, with average grade point average (GPA) increasing significantly between entry (2.19) and exit (3.28), which could be related to the mandatory attendance while detained. For the Recidivism Study (Project II), recidivism data were compiled post-release, and analyses were conducted to determine which factors were predictive of program success (i.e., desistence from crime). Two in every five youth (40%) had no new arrests one year following release, and three in five (60%) had no sustained petitions for a new offense. Of those who were re-arrested, 82 percent were arrested for charges less severe than in the past, and the average length of time between release and re-arrest was around five months (i.e., 152.94 days).

Three factors were found to be predictive of sustained petitions within one year following release from custody: receiving substance abuse services while in custody (which also could be related to lower resiliency and a greater level of criminal involvement), a higher number of true findings prior to the

instant offense, and an instant offense other than a probation violation. However, none of the factors examined were predictive of re-arrest (the recidivism measure not influenced by judicial practice). Many of the services offered at JRF are based on best practices or promising programs and include aftercare for the Breaking Cycles cases, which comprise the majority of the study sample. While this evaluation did not measure or track how these programs were delivered, program effectiveness may be improved by ensuring that the programs are implemented as designed. However, a critical component that was beyond the scope of the project was the examination of out-of-custody programs, an important piece in the rehabilitation model. Further, programmatic changes have occurred in JRF that many cases in the study sample did not have the opportunity to experience. There is evidence that positive changes have occurred as revealed through the decline in average number of fights and assaults during the evaluation period. Camp Barrett Camp Barrett houses youth 16½ to 20 years of age who are more entrenched in delinquency than those in JRF. Due to additional funding, the number of available beds increased twice at Camp Barrett in 2006 (February and October), bringing the total number of beds from 96 to 150, which alleviated over-crowding at Kearny Mesa and East Mesa Juvenile Detention Facilities. For the Program Analysis portion of the evaluation (Project I), the random sample of 160 youth committed to this facility and admitted between August 2005 and May 2006 revealed that most had a lengthy history

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


7 prior arrests

3 prior sustained petitions

1 prior commitment

High number of risk factors (21.77)

Low number of protective factors (3.98)

Average length of stay 136.82 days

Camp Barrett Youth Characteristics

Cognitive Behavioral Interventions

Life Skills

Literacy

Mental Health Counseling

Parenting Skills

Substance Abuse Treatment

Teen Relationship Violence

Work Readiness

Services Available in Camp Barrettof juvenile justice system contact. Similar to the JRF sample, these youth were rated at intake as having a low resiliency profile (i.e., many risk factors and few protective factors). On average, the youth in the sample stayed about four and a half months at the facility (two months longer on average than JRF youth).

Services provided to Camp Barrett from August 2005 through August 2007 youth include cognitive behavioral interventions, life skills classes, literacy, mental health counseling, parenting skills classes, substance abuse treatment, leadership, Teen Relationship Violence (TRV), and work readiness (including Regional Occupational Programs (ROP)). Similar to JRF, Camp Barrett modified programs to accommodate funding and staffing constraints. In addition, positive changes have been made since this study sample was selected which may not necessarily be reflected here.

An analysis of the services received according to assessed needs revealed unmet needs, particularly in the areas of substance use. In addition, risk, protective, and resiliency scores did not significantly improve between entry and exit. Two factors could be contributing to this finding. First, the SDRRC assessment tool is administered upon arrest rather than entry into Camp Barrett. In addition, several new programs were implemented at Camp Barrett during the study period, predominantly in the area of substance use and work readiness. As part of the Recidivism Study (Project II), over one-third (38%) of the youth who had exited the facility remained arrest free one year following release, slightly over half (52%) had no sustained petitions, and three quarters (76%) had reduced severity in offending. The average number of days between release and re-arrest was 136 days or about 4.5 months. Statistical analysis of factors predicting recidivism found that youth with a high-risk score on the SDDRC were more likely to be re-arrested one year following release, suggesting the need for additional in-custody services to address unmet needs and more intensive aftercare services for these youth. In addition, youth that had attended one of the cognitive behavioral programming options (which is a proven program), Thinking for Change, were

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


more likely to be found true for a new offense after being released for one year. However, it should be noted that these youth also were significantly more likely to have a greater number of prior commitments, and longer length of stays at the facility. Thus, these characteristics or other factors not measured could be related to this pattern of results. Further, the structure of this cognitive behavioral program changed in November 2006 to ensure more complete service delivery. Analysis of the study sample by year of admission revealed that those entering Camp Barrett in 2005 were significantly less likely to participate in Thinking for a Change than those admitted in 2006, reflecting the change in program structure. Youth Perceptions One Year Following Release Interviews with youth revealed areas in which Probation excels, as well as potential areas for increased focus in the effort to reduce recidivism and increase desistance among youth released from detention facilities. Though the sample size of youth solicited for input one year following their release from custody was small (42 completed interviews) and not randomly selected, the group completing interviews was similar to the entire sample from which it was drawn, and the views of these youth provide information unavailable from other sources.

Overall, youth interviewed felt staff treated them with respect and fairness; however, there was some concern about being trusted and being heard by staff. Not surprising, the majority of youth interviewed viewed the lack of freedom as a negative aspect of detention and reported missing family and friends. On a positive note, several respondents appreciated being able to attend school while detained, which is reflected in the increase in GPA while in custody.

Only about one-quarter of the youth interviewed reported participation in services following release despite finding programming in custody helpful. The large proportion of school dropouts among the Camp Barrett youth interviewed (all of whom were adults) presents a situation with limited employment opportunities. Further, almost one-third of these adults were unemployed and looking for work. These results highlight the interrelated issues of education and employment, emphasizing the need to ensure that these youth attain a high school diploma or the equivalent. These findings also suggest the need for assistance in linking youth to services in the community following release, which could be facilitated through

No new arrests: 38%

No new sustained petitions: 52%

Reduced severity: 76%

Days from release to re-arrest: 136 days

Camp Barrett Outcomes One Year Following Release

Family interaction improved post release.

Two in five reported changes in peer group.

Two-fifths of the youth from Camp Barrett had no GED or high school diploma.

Almost one-third of Camp Barrett youth were unemployed and looking for work.

Youth reported continued substance use post release.

Youth Interviews Revealed

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


Probation’s Aftercare Unit. Unfortunately, resources have been unavailable to provide aftercare for all youth released from Camp Barrett (according to Probation staff).

PROJECT III As part of Cost-Benefit Analysis (Project III), three separate research methodologies were used. A cost-benefit study was conducted to determine the comparative costs and benefits to the taxpayers for placement at Camp Barrett versus the California Youth Authority (CYA).1 This analysis included costs associated with each step in the cycle of criminality (from costs incurred by victims to justice system costs associated with police arrests, court processing, detention, and community supervision). These analyses confirmed that Camp Barrett is more cost-effective than CYA. Specifically, CYA would need to be 150 to 300 percent more effective than Camp Barrett to receive the same rate of return on taxpayers’ investment.

Another research methodology involved in Project III focused on staff perceptions of the effectiveness of JRF and Camp Barrett measured through in-depth and general surveys. The one-page, general survey, which was completed by 76 staff members, revealed that the majority of respondents held positive views about the youth detained in the facilities and that they thought rehabilitation

1 Now called the California Department of Corrections

and Rehabilitation - Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ).

was possible and something to be strived for. Their responses also indicated knowledge of effective strategies for working with detained youth and that they were aware of the need to maintain appropriate boundaries; however, some staff members were pessimistic, as reflected in their view that the youth cannot be trusted and are unwilling to change.

The in-depth survey instrument was distributed to 30 staff at both facilities (17 at JRF and 13 at Camp Barrett) to collect more detailed information regarding the work environment, as well as staff job satisfaction, perception of the youth, and staff knowledge and perception of the programs available to meet the youths’ needs. The individuals who responded to this survey reported having the education and experience to enable them to perform their jobs well, but a number of them expressed the need for more programs for youth at the facilities, as well as more staff. In terms of training, the respondents felt that mental health training, group facilitation, and gender issues were most helpful, but that additional training on mental health issues still was needed. When asked about the youth themselves, staff shared the perception that issues related to family, substance use, and peers were most often related to success or failure. In regard to programming, staff felt that services related to preparing the youth for release, such as work readiness, education, and

Staff members view the work environment and staff morale as positive, though burnout is still an issue.

Unmet needs of youth mentioned by staff included substance abuse, mental health, and work readiness.

Staff Perceptions

Camp Barrett is a more cost-effective option for detaining youth than the California Youth Authority (CYA).

Cost Effectiveness

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


Boys and Girls Clubs of America After School Program

Brief Strategic Family Therapy

Capital Serious Offender Treatment Program

Dialectical Behavior Therapy

Family Integrated Transitions Project

Functional Family Therapy

Lindamood-Bell Learning Processes

Mental Health Assessment

Multi-Systemic Therapy

Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care

Phoenix Academy

Project Toward No Drug Use

Thinking for a Change

Proven Programs

literacy, were most helpful. This survey was administered during the beginning of the study; therefore, the results do not reflect programmatic changes since that time. Finally, model and promising programs that have effectively been used in other jurisdictions also were highlighted through a comprehensive literature review. Programs providing services in the following areas were included: academics, aftercare, aggression reduction, risk assessment guided detention decisions, community justice detention reform, family-focused interventions, mental health treatment, re-entry, substance use, use of force by corrections, and work readiness. The needs addressed in each of the promising and proven programs were examined and categorized by area (i.e., family, peer, individual, education, delinquency, and substance use) as a guide in the process of future program development to address the unmet needs highlighted in this report.

RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are offered based on data and research on promising programs presented in this report as possible future steps in reaching the goal of rehabilitation. It is acknowledged that limited resources may affect how quickly or to what extent changes can be made. Study results suggest that receipt of services (as they were provided during the evaluation period, though this delivery may have improved since that time) does not appear to be directly related to a decreased probability of recidivism, highlighting the fact that innovative programming in custody is the starting point of rehabilitation, requiring continuation once the youth is released into the community. There are several recommendations that follow from this conclusion. The recommendations are organized under three different headings: immediate (strategies that can be implemented with internal coordination), short-term (ideas potentially requiring collaboration outside the agency), and long-term (proposals needing additional funding). Immediate

Increase access of detained youth to his family: After release from custody, the community and family are key in the rehabilitative process begun while detained. Upon entry to JRF, for example, over half of the youth received support from family members and over two-thirds felt unconditional parental love. Probation may want to consider new strategies to build on these strengths and ensure families can be engaged and collaborate in the rehabilitative process while youth are detained and services consistently provided. Parent(s)/ guardian(s), in particular, can be key

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


actors in facilitating successful reentry. Family members who cannot travel to the facility may be able to access regional probation offices and participate in teleconferences with their detained child as conditions for release are developed. With family input, these plans for release could accommodate family circumstances (e.g., include linkages to services to support the family).

Examine implementation of in-custody programs: Though program fidelity was not directly measured, the challenges revealed during the course of the evaluation (i.e., constrained resources, staff turnover, and logistical/contractual issues) suggest that continuity in service provision was less than designed.

Research shows that program effectiveness is directly related to program fidelity. Further, if staff members do not have the skills and experience necessary to deliver the services as designed, are not appropriately trained, and are not held accountable for performance, program fidelity is compromised, and program effectiveness can suffer. Given some of the outcomes described here, a starting point would be to examine program implementation in the facilities followed by program audits conducted on a regular basis to ensure program fidelity. Information regarding program fidelity can be used to develop staff training to address inconsistencies with the program design.

Strengthen aftercare services: Detention is often the starting point in the rehabilitative process, with the bulk of services delivered in the community. In the past, Probation’s Aftercare Unit has been responsible for facilitating this

process for youth released from Camp Barrett, while the Breaking Cycles program follows juveniles at JRF. Examination of means to maintain designated capacity of aftercare services is recommended to help improve outcomes.

Expand incentives for compliance: A system of incentives and graduated sanctions reinforces treatment engagement and encourages positive behavior. Expansion of incentives, like the Top Dorm program at JRF, is an idea worth expanding while the youth are in custody. Upon release, collaborative participation of youth and family in the development of a reentry goal plan (and conditions of release) can assist in creating motivation to change. In addition, movie passes, gift certificates, food coupons, and reduced time under probation supervision can facilitate motivation to change, as well as the graduated sanctions system available through Breaking Cycles (over two-thirds of the JRF sample were Breaking Cycles cases).

Short-Term

Strengthen linkages to educational programs upon release to support continued progress toward completion of high school education: Although the academic involvement for the JRF sample included passing grades and a positive attitude about school (both improving since incarceration), over one-third of the Camp Barrett youth interviewed one year after release from the facility had dropped out of school. Individuals in Camp Barrett are older with different needs. While Camp Barrett offers a variety of programs above and beyond school attendance, these results suggest the need to ensure completion of

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


high school for incarcerated youth, as well as participation in vocational training.

Tailor in-custody educational programs to learning style of participants: The literature on best practices supports educational programs that are tailored toward the learning style of each student. Educational material should be connected to the experiences of students with peer interaction and hands-on activities in a small classroom setting. Though the San Diego County Office of Education (SDCOE) operates the schools within the facilities, this recommendation still is relevant because the Probation Department works with them in this endeavor. The Probation Department and SDCOE should collaborate to revise the educational services offered to youth.

Long-Term

Augment in-custody programming with services specifically designed to address unmet needs: The proven and promising programs reviewed in this report provide a starting point for determining the most appropriate methods for addressing the needs of incarcerated youth. To ensure effectiveness, this programming may require a philosophical shift among staff from an emphasis on managing detained youth to facilitating a process of treatment that begins in custody and continues upon release to the community and thereafter.

Increase participation in services related to peers: Peer influence and neighborhood environment have been linked to delinquency in the juvenile justice literature. Only about half of youth assessed as needing services in the peer domain received programming in this

area. Further, responses during youth interviews indicated that these individuals return to neighborhoods characterized by criminal activity and violent victimization, including gangs. Efforts should be made to ensure that all youth in custody participate in programs like ART and Character Counts, as well as gang intervention, in order to prepare for reentry into negative environments with negative peers. Continuation of services upon release would further assist youth at the critical time of reentry.

Consider utilizing trained therapists rather than correctional personnel: Treatment provided by mental health personnel has been shown in the “what works” literature to be more effective than programs delivered by juvenile justice staff. Probation may want to further develop partnerships with community-based agencies or the mental health section of the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency to provide this treatment.

Provide practical employment training: The literature on what works with incarcerated adults suggests that employment training provided by private employers is more effective than more traditional interventions that may not teach skills most needed in the local community. Probation may want to consider collaboration with local businesses to create a relationship between youth in custody and employers, particularly at Camp Barrett where the youth are older and stay in custody for a longer period of time.

Evaluate the impact of work readiness: With one-third of the Camp Barrett sample described as high school dropouts, the potential for these

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


individuals to seek gainful employment and avoid future incarceration is decreased. Since this study began, Camp Barrett has implemented a work readiness program and expanded the ROP to improve the employability of wards. Unfortunately, the study sample did not have the opportunity to participate in these new programs. Follow-up on a more recent sample would provide outcome data to show the impact of these efforts in improving employability.

Cultivate community supports: Given the need for reentry services suggested by the results of this evaluation, Probation may want to identify groups and individuals within the communities where detained youth will return upon release to act as mentors, provide pro-social activities, teach skills, and reconnect youth to the community. Further, community collaboration can leverage additional resources for youth and decrease the fragmentation in service delivery resulting from constrained resources observed during this evaluation. Probation has a long history of collaborating with community partners that may be able to be expanded in the institutions.

Increase availability of mental health services: Mental health needs (e.g., individual counseling, monitoring of medication) were frequently fulfilled weekly, upon request, via transfer to either the Kearny Mesa or East Mesa Juvenile Detention Facilities, or through tele-psychiatry. Though this evaluation did not directly measure mental health issues among youth housed at JRF and Camp Barrett, the literature suggests that this population would benefit from more regular services delivered personally.

SUMMARY This evaluation of JRF and Camp Barrett illustrates the challenges of providing effective in-custody services. During the course of this evaluation, the Probation Department continued to modify the programming available within the facilities based on need, illustrating the proactive approach that the Probation Department takes in the area of juvenile detention in keeping with the continuum of services maintained in the community. Limited fiscal resources may make some of the recommendations provided seem impossible. However, all of the recommendations are particularly salient given the high cost of incarceration, both locally and statewide. With the shift of responsibility for housing a greater proportion of youthful offenders from the state to local governments, there is an even more critical need to ensure that the juvenile justice detention system utilizes the most effective and appropriate programming in order to maximize rehabilitation of youth and minimize recidivism. As Probation is well aware, redirecting resources toward best practices and seeking grant funding are two ways to implement these recommendations within budgetary constraints.

PROBATION RESPONSE


PROBATION RESPONSE

JRF – IMMEDIATE

Increase access of detained youth to his family

Parent and group counseling are facilitated by a trained counselor during visiting hours on Sunday’s when possible. Due to the remote location of the Juvenile Ranch Facility, the Director is researching the possibility of having the counseling sessions conducted at nearby regional locations such as the El Cajon probation office. The possibility of utilizing the existing teleconferencing equipment for visits with family members that can not travel to JRF is also being researched.

Examine implementation of in-custody programs

A majority of the camp program is based on a substance abuse therapeutic community program. Currently, all new staff is given a two hour training session by the substance abuse counselor on their program and philosophy. The Director will work with the Counselor and Training Senior in expanding the training to all counselors in the program. This should enhance the camp staff’s ability to facilitate the program more effectively. Institutional Services management will research the addition of programs facilitated by professional staff.

Strengthen aftercare services

As noted in the PEACE study, almost every ward released from JRF follows the continuum of care through the Breaking Cycles program. Also, the San Diego County Office of Education (SDCOE) parent-teacher liaison makes contact with parents of wards not scheduled to enter a Breaking Cycles program such as YDC or Reflections. Increased transition and aftercare services will be researched.

Expand incentives for compliance

JRF currently utilizes numerous incentives and graduated sanctions to reinforce treatment and encourage positive behavior such as the Top Dorm program and the Honor Roll list. Winning the Top Dorm competition and making the Honor Roll list allows wards an opportunity to earn both material awards (ice-cream, nachos, etc) and reduced commitment time. Other incentives such as furloughs and field trips may also be implemented in the future.

JRF – SHORT-TERM

Strengthen linkages to educational programs upon release to support continued progress toward comple-tion of high school education

As noted above, almost every ward released from JRF follows the continuum of care through the Breaking Cycles program and the SDCOE parent-teacher liaison makes contact with parents to ensure there is continued educational progress with each ward. The wards at JRF are all within school age so are

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


mandated to attend school while in custody or in the community.

Tailor in-custody educational pro-grams to learning style of participants

The facility director will meet and collaborate with the SDCOE principal to ensure best practices on educational programs are tailored toward the learning style of each student. An assessment for placement within the educational programs at JRF is conducted or has been conducted prior to entering the facility.

JRF – LONG-TERM

Augment in-custody programming with services specifically designed to address unmet needs

Will need to meet with educational staff, counselors, and other staff to review which programs are being used and which ones listed in table 7.1 of survey can be blended into current programs. Through the Breaking Cycles program, there is already an emphasis on facilitating a process of treatment that begins in custody and continues upon release to the community and thereafter. Institutional Services and Breaking Cycles meetings are conducted quarterly.

Increase participation in services related to peers

Staff researched a mentor program which provides a four hour seminar that targets gang involvement, negative peer association, and mentorship. This group provided a seminar and Probation is requesting they return on a regular basis.

Mentoring services are currently being researched by the Department.

Consider utilizing trained therapists rather than correctional personnel

This will take funding and/or collaboration with HHSA to coordinate treatment. The remote location makes it challenging to obtain ongoing assistance from trained therapists. Probation will research the addition of Correctional Counseling staff at the Juvenile Ranch Facility.

Provide practical employment training

Due to the young age of the wards committed to JRF, more emphasis is made on the continuation of education vs. employment training. However, for some of the older wards, we have started a faith based program teaches biblical perspectives as they relate to ethics, employment, and independent living skills. The San Diego Community College District Continuing Education Center provides a city-wide apprentice program. JRF hosted a speaker to visit with all wards. Wards that meet the education and age criteria for the program will be given program information prior to release.

Evaluate the impact of work readiness

Same as above.

Cultivate community supports

Collaborate more with Breaking Cycles and other JFS staff to increase transition and aftercare services. Mentoring services are currently being researched by the Department.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


Increase availability of mental health services

The availability of Mental Health Services increased drastically at the completion of this study with the hiring of a full-time psychologist at JRF. The use of approved interns is being researched also to provide additional clinical and counseling support.

CAMP BARRETT – IMMEDIATE

Increase access of detained youth to his family

A correctional counselor position is being added to assist with transition and will include family counseling/therapy as part of the programming.

The possibility of utilizing the existing teleconferencing equipment for visits with family members that can not travel to Camp Barrett is being researched.

Parenting Classes for our fathers or fathers-to-be in camp is being researched and allowing visitation with the child of the detainee.

Examine implementation of in-custody programs

Since the conclusion of the PEACE study, work preparation, drug education and counseling, and teen relationship violence programs were implemented with facilitation by professional contract staff. Additional programs to increase parenting skills, gang involvement and intervention will be added as budget allows using contract staff with the required expertise to run the programs effectively.

Strengthen aftercare services

A transition case manager through the County Office of Education, provides reentry services for the wards at Camp Barrett. However, the need exists for additional case management and aftercare services. A Correctional Counselor position has been approved and should be added within this fiscal year.

Expand incentives for Ccmpliance

The Camp Barrett incentive program and level system is being reviewed. Off site job fairs, plays, and other out-of-camp trips for detainees exhibiting exemplary behavior have been added.

CAMP BARRETT – SHORT-TERM

Strengthen linkages to educational programs upon release to support continued progress toward comple-tion of high school education

Three-quarters (75%) of the students in school at Camp Barrett successfully complete their GED. Camp Barrett continues to work with the school to keep this success rate for the students.

Ten additional computers for Charlie and Delta Dorms have been requested for detainees to study for the GED during study periods in the dorm. The School Counselor has expanded his services to Level 1 Supervision and the Gang Suppression Unit to monitor wards post release.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


Tailor in-custody educational programs to learning style of participants

As at all institutional facilities, each student is assessed for learning level and an individualized plan is created for all students. Currently the Regional Occupational Programs (ROP) at camp include: Culinary Arts, Building and Grounds, and Fire Science. The award winning Work Readiness Program was designed and developed to meet the needs of detainees and to assist them in reintegration to their communities. The use of computers as a tutoring tool for the detainees studying for the GED has proven a very successful strategy. Expansion of the GED computer tutorials to all the dorms with the assistance of the County Office of Education is in process.

CAMP BARRETT – LONG-TERM

Augment in-custody programming with services specifically designed to address unmet needs

A new strategy for wards being committed to Camp Barrett that includes needs assessment, and the development of a track system consisting of several tracks with designated programs to meet the needs of those individuals assigned to the specific track is being proposed. This assignment would be overseen by a case manager and upon completion of the designated track the detainee would be eligible for a step-down program for reintegration into the community.

New programs are being researched to augment current programs to meet the needs of our residents. (i.e. gang intervention, parenting, etc.)

Increase participation in services related to peers

Program augmentation in the areas of gang intervention and greater participation in anger replacement therapy programming is being held at current levels due to current budgetary constraints. A Conflict Manager program has been initiated where wards are trained by a licensed clinician on conflict resolution with peers. This program has experienced much success and is enjoyed by the wards who participate. The anticipated Correctional Counselor will also be involved in facilitating groups as required by need.

Consider utilizing trained therapists rather than correctional personnel

Contract services are utilized whenever possible, but are being held at current levels due to current budgetary constraints. Once the budget allows, more services will be provided through trained professionals or interns to increase programming. The anticipated Correctional Counselor will also be involved in facilitating groups as required by need.

Provide practical employment training

There are currently three (3) ROP programs in Fire Science, Building and Grounds and Culinary Arts offered at Camp Barrett. A fourth class, Agriculture Science, will be added October 2008.

A continual assessment of class offerings is conducted in collaboration with the County Office of Education to bring new meaningful educational programming to the wards.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


Evaluate the impact of work readiness

This is an ongoing collaborative process between Probation, the County Office of Education and student input. The practical aspects of the program are considered as well as statistical data. Additional work readiness programming is being currently researched.

Cultivate community supports

The Work Readiness program utilizes many community partners. Institutional Services is currently evaluating additional transition and re-entry partners. A possible step down program that would serve the youth at Camp Barrett is being proposed through a state grant.

Increase availability of mental health services

Since the finalization of the PEACE study, a full time psychologist provides mental health services at Camp Barrett. Through tele-psychiatry, medication evaluation as needed is utilized through the psychiatrists at EMJDF. The use of clinical interns is being researched to increase counseling services at the camp. The Correctional Counselor will also assist with additional counseling services.

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT BACKGROUND

Probation Evaluation, Assessment, and Cost-Effectiveness Study 1-1


INTRODUCTION The San Diego County Public Safety Group and Probation Department, in a commitment to be efficient stewards of taxpayers’ funds, while also providing youth in the juvenile justice system with the most appropriate and effective services, contracted with the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) to examine the effectiveness of two local commitment facilities for male juvenile offenders (the Juvenile Ranch Facility (JRF) and Camp Barrett). This unique, self-initiated examination of the impact of juvenile detention facilities is and illustrates the local dedication to improving the lives of youth, particularly within the juvenile justice system. The foundation of the juvenile correctional system is rehabilitation, with the basic tenet of providing the least restrictive confinement to meet the needs of youth, while also attending to the public safety needs of the community (Zavlek, 2005). In San Diego County, when a youth has a true finding on a petition and probation supervision and community programs have failed or are not enough to rehabilitate a youth, juveniles receive a commitment to JRF or Camp Barrett as a local alternative, rather a commitment to a more costly and restrictive facility of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation - Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) (formerly the California Youth Authority (CYA)). In November 2004, the San Diego County Probation Department produced an internal report comparing three placement/commitment options for male juvenile delinquents supervised by Probation. They randomly sampled from three groups of youth: those placed at residential treatment facilities (RTFs),1 committed to Camp Barrett, or committed to DJJ during the calendar year 2000. Although not designed as a formal evaluation nor adhering to stringent scientific methodology, the results of the report provided crucial information on the value of local placements compared to DJJ. Specifically, the results suggested a benefit to both taxpayers and committed youth when delinquents are placed locally, compared to outside the county (San Diego County Probation Department, 2004). As the “next step” in Probation’s review of their correctional programming practices, this study was a part of the formal evaluation plan that was recommended in the November 2004 Probation report. Specifically, the purpose of this study was to assist Probation in identifying the most effective and appropriate programming for youth at JRF and Camp Barrett and to assess the costs and benefits of locally detaining youth. To accomplish these goals, this study included three separate, but related projects, consisting of a program analysis, recidivism study, and cost-benefit analysis. Analyses are primarily descriptive in nature and include data collected from a random sample of youth admitted into JRF and Camp

1 Residential Treatment Facilities (RTFs) are privately owned treatment facilities licensed by the Community Care Licensing

Division of the California Department of Social Services. Placement in a RTF is ordered by the Court when delinquency problems are linked to mental health, substance abuse, or other emotional, physical, or sexual abuse that could be better addressed in a treatment setting.


1-2 Probation Evaluation, Assessment, and Cost-Effectiveness Study

Barrett between August 2005 and May 2006. The characteristics, level of need, and types of services received by youth at JRF and Camp Barrett are documented. When possible, these variables are compared to the historical sample of youth held at Camp Barrett to assess any differences between the current youth and those youth who entered the system previously. In addition, recidivism data are gathered in an effort to better understand the predictive factors of success. The cost-benefit analysis assesses if, and to what degree, it is beneficial to detain youth locally. A narrative review of best and promising practices also is provided to help inform Probation’s programming decisions. This final report builds upon findings from four previous reports completed as part of this three-year evaluation. Before detailing the methodology and discussing research findings to date, the next section describes the programs under study.

DESCRIPTION OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY JUVENILE FACILITIES The main focus of this evaluation was on two facilities: JRF and Camp Barrett. This section of the report describes programming in each facility in order to provide a context for the data presented in subsequent chapters. New initiatives developed during the course of the evaluation also are included to illustrate the responsiveness of Probation to the needs of youth as they were identified. Table 1.1 provides descriptive information about each facility, including capacity, funded beds, average daily attendance, and the age range of the wards for the data collection period of the evaluation (July 2005 through December 2007).

Table 1.1 Description of JRF and Camp Barrett July 2005 through December 2007

Camp Barrett**

JRF*

7/2005-1/2006 2-9/2006 10-12/2006 CY 2007

State rated capacity 250 125 125 125 156

Number of funded beds 154 96 144 150 150

Average daily attendance*** 145 92 129 147 143

Age range at time of commitment 12 to 17½ 16½ through 18

* The Corrections Standards Authority (CSA), the state agency responsible for monitoring juvenile detention facilities, considers JRF two facilities, each with a rated capacity of 125.

** The rated and funded capacity has increased over time for Camp Barrett. A third dorm opened on February 2, 2006, increasing the funded capacity from 96 to 144. The Regional Occupational Program (ROP) and the work readiness program operate in this dorm with Proposition 172 funding. This proposition, passed on November 3, 1993, established a permanent statewide sales tax for new public safety programs. Ongoing funding is covered through the regular Probation budget. The increased funded capacity required an adjustment in the rated capacity as approved by CSA. The approval process began in April 2006 when CSA inspected Camp Barrett and determined that a total capacity of 52 per dorm was allowed for a total overall capacity of 156. Approval was formally granted in January 2007. In the interim, to relieve overcrowding at the Kearny Mesa and East Mesa Juvenile Detention facilities, the capacity was increased to 150 starting in October 2006, which allowed day rooms to remain without bunks. For comparability, the data are presented separately for each period.

*** Average daily attendance is based on the daily population reports from the Probation Case Management System (PCMS), averaged over the year.

SOURCE: Research Unit, San Diego County Probation Department



Juvenile Ranch Facility JRF is located in Campo, in the southeastern region of San Diego County, approximately 60 miles from downtown San Diego. JRF has a capacity of 250 beds and uses a dormitory-style residential program. From July 2005 through December 2007, three dormitories were in use, and the County had funding for 154 beds, with an average daily attendance of 145 wards.2 The Rancho del Rayo area has two dorms. Rayo I generally houses boys ages 12 to 16 years old and Rayo II handles older youth (i.e., 16 to 17 years of age). However, 14- to 16-year-olds can be placed in either dorm depending upon maturity, with more mature youth housed in Rayo II. Both Rayo dorms use the Phoenix House Therapeutic Community program, an 84-day program focusing on substance use treatment, including youth with co-occurring mental health and behavioral issues. Average stay for youth in these dorms is 70 to 84 days. The other dorm, Rancho del Campo (Campo 1 or 2), houses boys ages 12 to 17 years old and provides two short-term commitment programs focusing on behavior modification: Breaking Cycles 56-day program and the 21-day Short-Term Offender Program (STOP). Prior to arrival at JRF, a Breaking Cycles probation officer completes a San Diego Regional Resiliency Checkup (SDRRC) to assess the youth’s needs.3 This assessment determines the dorm assignment; youth with primarily behavioral issues go to Rancho del Campo, while youth with substance abuse issues go to Rayo I or Rayo II (depending on age and criminal sophistication). In addition to the assessment process, the Juvenile Court can commit a youth directly a specific program at JRF. In addition to mandatory school attendance, opportunities for recreation, participation in annual Camp Olympics, and assignment to work crews (e.g., dorm, kitchen, and meal cleanup; raking leaves; laundry), a broad range of services are available to youth at JRF as summarized below. A description of these programs follows, and Table 1.2 shows the average level of monthly service provision for those programs documented by probation staff in monthly operational reports. (See Appendix Table A1 for a summary of when these services were available in each facility and Appendix Table A2 for a summary of these programs according to needs based on the SDRRC.)

Alcoholics Anonymous/Narcotics Anonymous (AA/NA) meetings: Bi-weekly AA/NA meetings are provided by Phoenix House staff in Rayo I and Rayo II for interested youth.

Aggression Replacement Training (ART): This anger control program, inspired by the promising program described in the Camp Barrett section of this chapter and Chapter 6, was developed at JRF as a 21-day cycle of sessions, meeting three to four days per week, for all wards in Rancho del Campo at JRF.

2 Monthly averages from July 2005 through December 2007 ranged from a low of 120 in August 2005 to a high of 169 in

October 2007 when wild fires threatened Camp Barrett and these youth were temporarily transferred to JRF. Other than in October 2007, the monthly average did not exceed the 154 funded beds. In an effort to alleviate crowding at the Kearny Mesa Juvenile Detention Facility, facility staff strive to moderate population fluctuations.

3 This tool is described in more detail in Chapter 2.



Character Counts: This program, taught by probation staff and designed by the Character Counts Coalition of the Josephson Institute, teaches core character values (i.e., trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring, and citizenship (T.R.R.F.C.C.)) (Adkins, 2002). Meetings held three to four times a week instill the importance of these values to all youth in Rancho del Campo.

Table 1.2 Monthly Average Number of Services Provided at JRF and Camp Barrett

July 2005 through December 2007

Class JRF Camp Barrett

Alcoholics Anonymous/Narcotics Anonymous 6.33 1.23

Aggression Replacement Training* 9.63 3.93

Character Counts 16.37 4.83

Conflict Management** n/a 2.08

Criminal Conduct and Substance Abuse Treatment n/a 7.09

Life Skills n/a 3.17

Literacy and Reading Clinic 53.53 n/a

Substance Abuse Treatment n/a 7.90

Teen Relationship Violence n/a 2.77

Thinking for a Change n/a 7.40

Work Readiness n/a 6.42

Building and Grounds n/a 11.00

Culinary Arts n/a 5.79

Fire Academy Regional Occupational Program n/a 4.36

* No instructors were available to teach ART in Camp Barrett from September through December 2006. Data from the monthly operational reports confirm this difference in implementation. The average number of sessions at Camp Barrett ranged from an average of 7.11 from July 2005 through March 2006 to 3 per month from April through August 2006 to an average of 3.25 during 2007.

** This information is not captured on JRF monthly operational reports.

SOURCE: Monthly Operational Reports, San Diego County Probation Department

Conflict Management: This program is run by the San Diego County Office of Education (SDCOE) and is part of its Violence Prevention/Intervention program. Bi-monthly, training sessions are held for one hour in peer conflict resolution with wards volunteering and designated as conflict managers. These youth are trained to help resolve conflicts between wards at JRF.

Drug and Alcohol Class: This class, offered to short-term offenders detained in Rancho del Rayo, includes a short series of videos presenting the problems associated with drug and alcohol use, followed by a discussion facilitated by probation officers.



John entered JRF for the first time with a court order to complete the therapeutic community program. A Logan Heights gang member, he was completely con-sumed by the gang life style, challenging rival gang members to fights, and creating serious negative tensions in the dorm. His blatant disregard for staff and camp rules resulted in repeated WEEDS designation and eventual court order to begin the program all over again. Upon returning to JRF, through staff and peer counseling, he began to respond differently to difficult situations. He completed the program, failing no days and receiving no rule viola-tions for poor behavior. He left as a great example to all the wards.

—Description by JRF staff

NOTE: The name has been changed to protect the ward’s privacy.

Literacy: This program is part of the school’s literacy program and is based on the Lindamood-Bell model (Lindamood, Bell, & Lindamood, 1997). Trained by Lindamood-Bell staff, the teacher provides the program to a small portion of JRF wards. Upon arrival to the facility, each ward is tested by school staff. Wards with low reading skills are screened for the literacy program by the teacher, with the neediest students enrolled and required to participate in the program (e.g., 12th graders with 2nd grade reading level).

Reading Clinic: During 45-minute blocks of time, under the direction of probation staff, wards are required to read a book or write a letter to a family member or friend up to three times a week. Structured written assignments also are given. Character Counts exercises are incorporated into this program as well.

Mental Health Counseling: This psychological service is provided on an as-needed basis by Mental Health/Forensic Services staff. However, for a large period during this evaluation (May 2006 through December 2007), the full-time psychologist (four days/week) was on leave, and another staff person providing mental health counseling once a week left for a new job. To overcome this gap, a psychologist from the East Mesa Detention Facility provided weekly one-on-one therapy upon request by the wards. This situation is scheduled to be rectified by the beginning of FY 2008-09. Tele-psychiatry (teleconferences between the ward and a psychiatrist) is used for assessment of medication needs.

Parental Support: In addition to regular opportunities for family visits, Phoenix House counselors hold monthly parent meetings prior to visiting hours on Sunday in order to present an overview of the Phoenix House Therapeutic Community at JRF, as well as discuss recovery issues with any interested parents.

Substance Abuse Treatment: As previously noted, Phoenix House operates a therapeutic community in two dorms: Rayo I and Rayo II. Participation is mandatory for all youth housed in one of these dorms. This program includes weekly encounter groups to deal with conflicts among members of the community (an average of 16 per month) and stroke groups (7 per month, on average) where positive encouragement is bestowed. Aftercare and reentry services also are available as part of the Phoenix House program. Enhanced reentry services are provided to those in need through Assertive Continuing Care Ensuring Sobriety and Success (ACCESS), a program operated by Phoenix House in cooperation with San Diego Youth and Community Services (SDYCS) as part of the Breaking Cycles program. Case managers work with wards and their families in particular ZIP codes for an additional three months following release. In addition, McAllister



Institute for Treatment and Education (MITE) provides counseling sessions Mondays through Thursdays. A total of 12 drug-counseling sessions are required for completion of the MITE program. Individual substance abuse counseling also is available for those with more intensive needs.

Young Parent Group/Teen Parenting (MITE Parenting Education): Wards who are parents are identified as they enter JRF and offered the opportunity to participate in this program. As part of this weekly class, a MITE counselor covers parenting issues including: development of infant motor and language skills, parental ability to enhance infant development, stress management as it relates to raising infants, self-esteem issues, role play, care of infants, and realistic expectations.

The opportunity to attend bible study and regular church services4 was one service not regularly offered at JRF throughout the evaluation period. This situation was related to challenges in identifying clergy from a variety of faiths willing to travel to the facility. As of January 2008, two Catholic deacons provided guidance and counseling on Thursdays, upon request, and the JRF director was working with a faith-based corporation with a program, “Foundation for a New Future,” that encourages connection with a faith community upon release and teaches self value, character development, and career development. Throughout the evaluation period, there were Probation staff changes, one of which (at the director level) resulted in significant program changes. Specifically, in spring 2006, the new JRF director implemented a novel method of promoting positive behavior in wards called WEEDS: Wards Encouraged Each Day to Succeed. According to the director, the philosophy behind this strategy is to cultivate a beautiful garden, which requires weeding out those who cannot follow the rules. These “weeds” are sent to Juvenile Hall (i.e., Kearny or East Mesa juvenile detention facilities) for approximately five days. During this period, the time served related to the commitment ordered by the court stops until the juvenile returns to JRF. This strategy opens a spot for youth waiting in Juvenile Hall for placement at JRF, in addition to holding detainees accountable

4 Religious involvement is a protective factor against delinquency (Arthur, Hawkins, Pollard, Catalano, & Baglioni, 2002).

Ed had a history of prior commitments, drug use, and gang activity. As a result of prior experience in custody, he arrived confident that he knew what to expect. He began by trying to manipulate the rules and regulations and subsequently failing numerous days for poor behavior. Because his dorm lost “Top Dorm” points each time he was placed on WEEDS status, his poor behavior was no longer accepted by his peers. His first gang-related fight resulted in administrative removal, rather than being given two or three chances before receiving such a serious sanction. This consequence was Ed’s very last. Upon returning to JRF, he received counseling from staff and his peers. He became a positive role model. For example, during dorm meetings, he encouraged and motivated his peers to do well in the Therapeutic Community, making positive changes in their lives as well. When he completed the program, he was at the highest status possible to achieve in the program.

– Description by JRF staff




for their actions. This structured program cultivates a “no tolerance” attitude by staff. The director reminds members that youth need to occasionally “blow off steam” and to counsel youth and work with them when faced with less serious issues prior to “weeding” individuals out of JRF, which can adversely impact the population at Juvenile Hall if used excessively. Another initiative implemented by the new director in 2006 is called “Top Dorm.” Each of the three dorms competes for the “Top Dorm” award where recipients are recognized for a week with a flag on the dorm, polo shirts to wear, and a one day reduction in their commitment. Awards are made based on behavior, school participation, and dorm cleanliness. A reduction in behavior problems as recorded in facility monthly reports indicated that these two tactics had a positive effect. From July through December 2005 (prior to the staffing change in the director position), there were an average of 12.3 fights and 2.7 assaults per month. The averages for the same period in 2006 were 4.8 and 1.7, respectively. This impact has been sustained based on data for the same period in 2007 where there were an average of 3.8 fights and 1.5 assaults (not shown). Camp Barrett Camp Barrett, formerly the Youth Correctional Center (YCC), also is located in the southeastern area of San Diego County. This facility was once an adult facility and now is a minimum-security, local placement option for juvenile male wards. Youth can be committed to Camp Barrett from the age of 16½ through 18 years old, but can remain at the facility until their 20th birthday. When this evaluation began, Camp Barrett was the only local institutional commitment alternative to DJJ. The population committed to Camp Barrett usually has a history of failed placements, serious offenses, and/or a high-risk delinquent orientation. As Table 1.1 previously presented shows, the capacity of this facility has changed over time. When this study initially began in July 2005, restricted funding limited the number of beds utilized to below the state-rated capacity. In February 2006, Proposition 172 funds were received to open an unoccupied dorm for work readiness programming. This change resulted in successful application to the Corrections Standards Authority (CSA) (the governmental agency in California that oversees adult and juvenile detention facilities) for approval to increase the capacity. At the time of this report, the state-rated capacity was 156 beds, with a daily average of 143 wards at Camp Barrett and a duration of time served ranging from 6 to 18 months. As one detention option for youth in San Diego County, management of the population at Camp Barrett is influenced by population levels at other facilities and vice versa. To facilitate efficient use of bed space at all facilities, Camp Barrett utilizes a number of strategies. Whenever wards are transferred to a juvenile hall (i.e., the Kearny Mesa or East Mesa juvenile detention facilities) due to a behavioral or medical issue, there is a “one-for-one” policy. That is, another youth is transferred to Camp Barrett in his place. This policy replaces the former method of holding an empty bed for the youth’s return. As soon as the behavioral or medical issue has been resolved, the youth is at the top of the list for return to Camp Barrett. Further, disciplinary transfers are avoided whenever possible and limited to three maximum detention days at a juvenile hall. With respect to relocation to Kearny Mesa or East Mesa Juvenile Detention Facilities for modifications in medication, the number of days required for direct supervision by medical staff has been reduced. In the past,



changes in medication required at least a week of monitoring for drug reactions prior to transfer back to Camp Barrett. This policy has been changed to 24 hours of observation, resulting in earlier transfers back to Camp Barrett. In 2007, the psychological clearance process to Camp Barrett also was expedited. In the past, psychological clearances were valid for 24 hours. Any delays in transportation resulted in the need for an additional psychological clearance. With the expedited process, additional clearances are required only if further psychological assessment is deemed necessary. When a juvenile arrives at Camp Barrett, programming decisions are made based on needs identified through charges, court order, social study, and SDRRC completed upon arrest. All wards at Camp Barrett without a high school diploma or the equivalent (i.e., general educational development (GED) certification) attend the Barrett High School, administered by the SDCOE, which includes special education classes and a GED component. Youth not attending school participate in the full-time work program. Youth also are provided the opportunity for recreation and to attend bible study groups and church services. The following summarizes the other programs operating at Camp Barrett during the course of this evaluation. As with the discussion of services provided in JRF, Table 1.2 shows the average level of service provision for programs documented by probation staff in monthly operational reports.

Alcoholics Anonymous/Narcotics Anonymous (AA/NA) meetings: AA/NA meetings are available about once a month for interested youth. As will be discussed further in Chapter 4, almost all of youth in the facility are in need of services related to substance use, a demand beyond one AA/NA meeting per month. The director has been working with Volunteers in Probation (VIP) throughout the period of this evaluation to garner additional support for this program. While regular AA/NA meetings was not a problem for JRF because Phoenix House staff lead the meetings, staff members at both facilities have acknowledged that convincing service providers and volunteers to travel the distance to their locations can sometimes be a challenge. Further, entrance into the facilities requires a criminal background check that entails giving up the anonymity upon which AA/NA is based.

Cognitive Behavioral Programs: Three different cognitive behavioral programs are provided at Camp Barrett. Character Counts (using the same model as JRF) and Thinking for a Change sessions are provided weekly by Probation staff. As of November 2006, Thinking for a Change was restructured to ensure that every ward is exposed to all program topics, even if a ward is transferred between dorms. As part of this restructuring, the topics were divided into groups of three (i.e., cognitive restructuring, social skills development, and development of problem solving skills), and all dorms focus on the same group of topics each week. The third program, ART, seeks to change the behavior and cognition of teens assessed as chronically aggressive. Based on an 8-week, 12-hour curriculum (taught to two groups each week for a total of 20 participants), the program utilizes skill-streaming methods (modeling, role-playing, and performance feedback) to teach pro-social skills, repetitive learning techniques for anger control, and guided group discussions to promote empathy and improve moral reasoning. Initially, ART was provided by a private contractor (Spectrum) twice a week. However, in spring 2006, due to Spectrum staffing constraints, service delivery was reduced to once a week, though the total number in each group doubled. This change shifted the focus of the program from a group process to a more instructional one. By August 2006, the program was discontinued until



January 2007 when two classes were reinstated each week. Since impulsivity is the biggest behavioral issue for this population, the ART classes focus on redirecting this reaction to more constructive strategies. However, the need for ART is far greater than this level of service. As a result, at the time of this report, the director hopes to be able to expand the program in the future.

Community Service: In order to assist community groups (e.g., Red Cross, Star/PAL (Sports, Training, Academics, and Recreational/Police Athletic League), fire breaks, and road crews), wards are transported to various locations and directed to perform the services needed. This program is designed to keep all Camp Barrett youth in touch with the community while in custody and give back to the community.

Conflict Management: Originally part of the Positive Peer Leadership program, successful applicants to this program are trained weekly by a psychological professional regarding principles and techniques for preventing and dealing constructively with interpersonal conflicts. Originally, this training was provided monthly by the camp psychologist. However, in July 2007, this responsibility was transferred to a SDCOE staff member who provides the program at both JRF and Camp Barrett. For up to three hours each week, conflict managers (i.e., trained wards) meet with the SDCOE staff member for training, role playing, and reviewing of their activities during the previous week. Though the program is essentially the same at both facilities, the longer length of stay at Camp Barrett results in less turnover among Conflict Managers and requires more regular (weekly versus bi-monthly at JRF) and more intensive services (longer meetings covering topics more in-depth).

Criminal Conduct and Substance Abuse Treatment Classes: This mental health program, based on cognitive behavior methods, was provided to wards between July 2005 and August 2006 by a private contractor (Spectrum). Program participation required 9 to 12 months. Therefore, program assignment was based on length of stay, as well as space availability. More information about this program is provided in Chapter 7. After seven months without this service, substance abuse groups were implemented in March 2007 through a contract with MITE (described below), with the criminal conduct aspect of the previous program no longer a focus.

Family Counseling: In addition to regular opportunities for family visitation, a family counselor from the SDCOE meets with wards and their families on Sundays to do transition planning.

Fire Academy Regional Occupational Program: This course, taught by local fire fighters, is an occupational program in the field of fire fighting and includes hands-on training, as well as leadership and team-building skills. There is an application process for participation. In order to take part, wards must make a commitment of ten weeks and be successfully participating in school, as well as other probation programs. Participants are certified in wild land fire behavior, basic fire fighting, humans on the fire line, the incident command system, communication, escape routes, and safety zones. Those receiving certification are eligible to apply for seasonal fire fighting positions with the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. The program operates year-round except during the fire season (i.e., during hot, dry weather) when fire fighters are too busy to deliver the program.



Life Skills Classes: Based on need, wards detained at Camp Barrett are assigned to eight life skills training sessions that focus on the development and application of self-esteem, self-improvement, and goal setting. Basic information on voting, registering for the selective service, social security, financial planning, education, and employment also are included. These classes are taught by probation staff.

Literacy: Based on the Lindamood-Bell model, youth assessed by school personnel as needing

this service work on improving literacy. The model focuses on developing the cognitive processes necessary for reading, spelling, language comprehension, and critical thinking. Testing is conducted to identify an individual's specific problem area and a curriculum is designed around the test results. Instructors from the SDCOE, trained by Lindamood-Bell staff, use the Lindamood-Bell material to provide this program.

Mental Health Counseling: As at JRF, mental health/forensics staff members provide individual counseling on an as-needed basis. In addition, all youth on psychotropic medications are seen at least once. From June 2007 through February 2008, the full-time psychologist position assigned to Camp Barrett was vacant. A counselor from juvenile forensics provided weekly psychological services to youth requesting counseling and those referred by staff from June through October 2007. When mental health personnel were not onsite, services for more serious cases were available at East Mesa Juvenile Detention Facility through the crisis team; however, this option was reserved for individuals administratively removed from camp. Tele-psychiatry was used to assess needs related to medication.

Parenting: According to a Camp Barrett poll, 17 percent of youth were fathers. To help address the needs arising from parenthood, the Camp Barrett director worked with Children’s Hospital to establish a parenting class for current and expectant fathers. The curriculum includes discussion of roles and responsibilities of fathers, baby care, well child check-ups, common childhood illnesses, child development, positive discipline, nutrition, prevention of childhood injuries, and community resources. This program was pilot tested in January 2008 with positive results, and funding is being sought.

Substance Abuse Treatment: Starting in March 2007, all substance abuse treatment services began to be provided by a full-time counselor from MITE. Service delivery begins with a one-hour substance abuse assessment of all wards admitted to Camp Barrett. Most wards receive substance use education over a six- to eight-week period. These classes cover basic information about substance use (e.g., descriptions of drugs and how they impact users). When the assessment reveals serious substance use issues, youth are assigned to small groups of eight to ten wards instead of the Substance Abuse Education program. These groups are similar to treatment and focus on substance use by group members, reasons for use, and ways to stop using. In addition, one-on-one counseling is available for those who want to discuss issues privately (e.g., concerns about relapse following release).

Team Leader Program: Camp Barrett gives cooperative youth the opportunity to assist in managing the population in the dorms as team leaders and bay captains. In the past, monthly meetings were held with all team leaders and bay captains; however, these sessions were used to voice complaints rather than opportunities for cultivating leadership skills in the wards. In



What helped me out the most was the “Find something to do” rule... I started seeing improvement in myself once I started staying busy because then I had no time to screw up. The second thing that helped me was the work out routine… I realized I could do whatever I put my mind to because if you can keep going when you feel like quitting, you can keep going through anything. It also showed me the way I could think straight when I’m in great physical shape… The exercises also contributed with the discipline factor because I was too tired to break any rules. The third and final factor that helped me change was the officers always staying on us about proper etiquette and respect. What I realized was when you show manners and respect towards people, you’re more likely to earn their respect, and to ultimately obtain what you want out of life. Also, once you’ve earned somebody’s respect, you have more respect for yourself. You also have confidence and belief in yourself and feel you can accomplish anything you put your mind to.

–Quote from Camp Barrett youth

July 2007, the meetings were divided by dorm and led by a senior probation officer with an established curriculum including a leadership word of the day, an overview of roles and expectations, a discussion of experiences during the month, and strategies for dealing with typical situations.

Teen Relationship Violence Program: These workshops, run by a facilitator from the

San Diego County Office of Violence Prevention, are based on experiential learning. Topics include defining dating violence and challenging beliefs related to violent behavior. Originally, the program involving three sessions was provided quarterly to all wards (about 30 wards each quarter). During these quarterly meetings, the program facilitator identified youth with a need for small group work. Responding to this need, the program expanded in October 2005 to include small group meetings (6 to 12 wards) approximately once a week. Renewal of the contract for these services for FY 2007-08 was lengthy, resulting in a loss of services through August 2007.

Work Readiness Program: In February 2006, Camp Barrett opened a dorm dedicated to work readiness programming. Though there were delays in full implementation, the Pro-bation Department has been creative in maintaining services that address work readiness issues in the interim.5 In January 2007, a contract was finalized with the San Diego County Office of Education (SDCOE) to implement the work readiness program, which began the same month. A career counselor teaches work readiness classes at the facility twice a week for eight weeks that focus on assessing job interests; conducting job searches; preparing job applications, resumes, letters of intro-duction, cover letters, and thank you letters; interviewing techniques; and retaining jobs. In addition, youth are taken to a resource fair in which they have an opportunity to talk to prospec-

5 Initially, San Diego Workforce Partnership, a community-based agency, was scheduled to provide the work readiness

services. However, insurance coverage issues prevented the contract from being finalized. Unfortunately, this delay resulted in the cancellation of work readiness services at Camp Barrett that were formerly provided free of charge. In the interim to fill the gap, the building and grounds, as well as the kitchen, developed in-house certificate programs. Beginning in August 2006, the building and grounds program was provided by Probation staff. In November 2006, an ROP instructor from the SDCOE joined the team to replace the in-house kitchen certificate program with the Culinary Arts ROP program, and in FY 2007-08, the building and grounds program was similarly taken over by ROP from the SDCOE.



tive employers and receive information about vocational training and other educational opportunities in the community (e.g., local colleges and trade schools) and community resources (i.e., housing, health care, one-stop career centers). The career counselor also provides follow-up services after release. Participation in this program is determined by space availability and sufficient length of stay for program completion (i.e., eight weeks remaining in Camp Barrett). In addition, youth can apply to participate in one of two ROPs: Building and Grounds and Culinary Arts. Wards earn school credits for attending these programs. Culinary Arts provides entry-level training in preparation for work in the food service industry as a waiter, cook, or cook’s helper. Instruction includes sanitation and safety, tools and equipment, basic principles of food preparation, and commercial kitchen equipment and tools. Many participants also earn their ServSafe certification, a qualification that is more extensive than a food handler’s card.

When behavior does not change and the term of detention initially ordered by the court is ending, a violation of the court order is filed with the court so additional time can be added to enable continued intervention. If safety and security is an issue, the youth is returned to court with a recommendation for transfer to the Youthful Offender Unit6 at the East Mesa juvenile detention facility (the local detention option developed in FY 2007-08 when the State of California restricted transfers to DJJ for only the most seriously criminogenic individuals).

REPORT OVERVIEW The remainder of this report provides details about the three projects conducted as part of this study, which include a program analysis, recidivism study, and cost-benefit analysis. Chapter 2 provides the framework concerning how the research was conducted and includes the research questions and methodology for each project. A detailed description of the cost-benefit analysis project also is included in Chapter 2. Presentation of study findings for the program analysis project begins with a focus on JRF in Chapter 3 and Camp Barrett in Chapter 4. Both of these chapters include background information of the youth, an examination of changes in risk and protective factors, as well as criminal activity before and following program participation. The perspective of the youth themselves is presented in Chapter 5. Staff perceptions are summarized in Chapter 6, which is one facet of the cost-benefit analysis project, and Chapter 7 reviews promising practices throughout the United States (another aspect of the cost-benefit analysis project). The heart of the cost-benefit analysis project is outlined in Chapter 8. Finally, Chapter 9 reveals conclusions and recommendations for the future.

6 SDCOE operates a work readiness program for this unit as well.

CHAPTER 2 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY



INTRODUCTION As noted in Chapter 1, in 2004, the San Diego County Probation Department drafted a preliminary report regarding the placement options for juvenile male wards based on those in custody during 2000. This review provided data on youth characteristics, services received, and recidivism rates at residential treatment facilities (RTFs), Camp Barrett, and the California Youth Authority (CYA) (now called the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation - Department of Juvenile Justice, or DJJ). The results of the report suggested that local placement of youth was a more cost-effective option than commitment to CYA.1 In addition, the data indicated that maintaining youth locally was more effective in changing behavior (i.e., reducing recidivism). These preliminary findings and the recommendations generated from the report were the impetus for this current study, which was designed to assist Probation in identifying the most effective and appropriate programming for youth in the Juvenile Ranch Facility (JRF) and Camp Barrett and to assess, using a more rigorous evaluation design, the costs and benefits of locally detaining youth. This chapter includes information about the three projects that comprise the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) study: a program analysis, a recidivism study, and a cost-benefit analysis. Each project included research questions that addressed the effectiveness of local Probation commitment facilities and placement options. Key components of the projects included understanding the characteristics and needs of youth at the facilities, determining recidivism rates and factors that predict successful rehabilitation, and calculating the costs and benefits of local commitment options. This three-prong approach utilized various methodologies to address specific research questions including collection of archival data from the Probation Case Management System (PCMS), Automated Regional Justice Information System (ARJIS), San Diego County Sherriff and District Attorney computer systems, and standardized assessments; review of proven and promising practices; in-depth interviews with youth; surveys of staff; and a cost-benefit analysis. In addition, SANDAG compared the applicable historical data available from the 2004 Probation report to data collected on the current Camp Barrett sample. Throughout the discussion of results, significant differences are determined using the .05 threshold. That is, there is 95 percent confidence that the results are not due to chance. Any exceptions to this standard are noted.

1 The acronym CYA is used in reference to the data collected for this report because that was the name at the time the

study was completed.



PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS Project I: Program Analysis Project Goal The goal of the program analysis project was to provide Probation with a clearer understanding of the characteristics of youth being served at JRF and Camp Barrett, the effectiveness of Probation in matching the needs of these youth with program services, the similarities between the current level of need of youth in the system compared to the past, and how the system has changed in its provision of services. Specific Research Questions

What are the characteristics and level of need of youth entering JRF and Camp Barrett?

What services are youth receiving while at JRF and Camp Barrett?

How do the characteristics of current Camp Barrett youth compare to those who have entered the system in the past?

Sample Description Two samples were used to answer the questions posed in this project: a current sample for which detailed data was collected and a historical sample from which comparison information was available for Camp Barrett. Ideally, the detailed data available for the current sample also would be provided for the historical sample. Unfortunately, data for the historical cases were not reliable enough to justify the extra resources required to collect the information. Current Sample To address the research questions, research staff randomly sampled 3982 youth from the population of all youth who entered JRF or Camp Barrett between August 2005 and May 2006. These included 160 youth from Camp Barrett and 238 from JRF (158 Breaking Cycles, 60 STOP, and 20 all other types). This distribution of the random sample was estimated by determining the proportion of youth in these groups in the population of committed youth from January 1, 2005 to June 30, 2005. Chapters 3 and 4 include more detailed descriptions of these groups.

2 The original sample was 400. However, one ward passed away during the study period and it was discovered through the

data collection process that one person never actually entered the facility. Both of these cases were removed from the sample.



Historical Sample The Camp Barrett portion of the historical sample that was selected for the 2004 Probation study is utilized as a comparison group for the Camp Barrett component of the project. The historical sample includes 161 youth from RTF, CYA, and Camp Barrett. Probation staff determined this sample proportion by sampling from the 2,019 youth in placement during the calendar year 2000 (959 at RTF, 528 at CYA, and 532 at Camp Barrett) after eliminating duplicate placements (leaving a total of 1,139 youth). From this group, a stratified random sample was selected consisting of 59 youth in each group. However, due to data discrepancies (data conversion errors in PCMS and unavailable data) that were expected, the sample size was reduced to 47 at RTF, 55 at CYA, and 59 at Camp Barrett. The Camp Barrett portion of the historical sample is used as the comparison group for the Camp Barrett current sample. Unfortunately, there was no comparison group for the JRF sample. Data Sources Current Sample The San Diego County Probation Department compiles information for juveniles in the justice system using PCMS. Probation and SANDAG staff worked together using a data exchange process through the San Diego County Secure File Transfer Application Web site. From August 2005 to May 2006, Probation staff provided data for the population entering both JRF and Camp Barrett that included identification number, name, date of birth, commitment type, commitment date, entry date, address, ethnicity, and programming received while committed. In addition, SANDAG staff collected by hand, information from PCMS on successful program completion, assault incidents during commitment, whether a youth was absent without official leave (AWOL) during commitment, and number of family visits. Participation in in-custody programs3 was tracked for each ward in the sample from entry into the facility (August 2005 to May 2006) through exit (August 2005 to August 2007). Therefore, this evaluation describes the impact of detention at JRF and Camp Barrett based on the programs available from August 2005 through August 2007. A list of these programs is shown in Table 2.1. The issues addressed in many programs cross domains so they are listed in multiple areas. , To determine the needs of juveniles in the sample, data collected using the San Diego Regional Resiliency Checkup (SDRRC) was downloaded through Assessments.com (an automated assessment and analysis tool). This validated tool4 is used throughout the Probation Department to examine the risk and protective factors in a youth’s life. All probation officers are provided training in the accurate completion of this assessment tool. Probation officers complete a SDRRC for juveniles upon program entry (i.e., intake for JRF and at the time of arrest for Camp Barrett) whenever there is a new offense, at six-month intervals while under probation supervision, when risk needs to be

3 Every effort has been made to ensure that data regarding services received while in custody are complete and accurate.

The intent was to measure service delivery based on the number of sessions attended by type of service; however, Probation staff members indicate that data contained in PCMS under report attendance. Since the youth are detained, they cannot avoid participation. Therefore, it is assumed that any attendance equals full participation.

4 This tool has been validated by RAND (Turner, Fain, & Sehgal, 2005).



reassessed to make adjustments to the youth’s case plan, and upon exit. Intake and exit assessments were included in this study.5 The SDRRC rates clients on 30 risk and 30 protective factors that are categorized into six domains (family, peer, individual, delinquency, substance use, and education). The 30 risk factors are assessed in the six domains as follows:

Delinquency: prior arrests, crime in neighborhood, criminality while under the influence, assaultive behavior, and delinquent orientation;

Education: low achievement, truancy pattern, suspension/expulsion pattern, disruptive in the classroom, and not in school;

Family: poor familial relations, parental supervision deficiencies, chaotic family, parental criminality/substance abuse, and runaway behavior;

Individual: lack of pro-social interests, delinquent orientation, anger management, sensation seeking, and temperament;

Peer: social isolation, few pro-social acquaintances, gang affiliation, delinquent friends, and no meaningful relationships with adults; and

Substance use: pattern of alcohol use, use of mood altering substances, frequent substance use, impact on daily functioning, and age at onset.

Similarly, the following 30 protective factors are included in the same six domains:

Delinquency: community support, pro-social adult relations, structured activities, participates in faith community, and involved in community organizations;

Education: school engagement, attachment with academic achiever, positive interaction with teachers, educational aspirations, and supportive climate;

Family: communicates with family, constructive use of time at home, family activities, family support, and unconditional regard from a parent;

Individual: values honesty, self control, self efficacy in pro-social roles, problem solving skills, and plans, and organizes and completes tasks;

Peer: positive peer relations, confides in someone, values rights of others, makes friends, and communicates disagreements; and

Substance use: parental modeling of moderation, manages peer pressure, free of distressing habits, manages stress, and has a positive self concept.

5 Intake assessments completed within three months of admission and exit assessments done within three months of release

from the facility are included.



Table 2.1 In-Custody Programming* by Risk/Protective Domain**

Domain JRF Camp Barrett

FAMILY+

Aggression Replacement Training

Character Counts

Family Visits


Character Counts

Family Visits

Life Skills



PEER


Character Counts Aggression Replacement Training

Character Counts

Substance Abuse Groups (replaced

Criminal Conduct/Substance Abuse)



INDIVIDUAL

AA/NA‡


Character Counts

McAllister Institute for Treatment and Education

Drug Counseling

Phoenix House Therapeutic Community

AA/NA


Character Counts

Community Service

Life Skills




EDUCATION†

Literacy Building and Grounds Maintenance

Career Guidance

Community Service

Fire Academy Regional Occupational Program

Literacy

DELINQUENCY

AA/NA‡


Character Counts

MITE Drug Counseling


AA/NA


Character Counts





SUBSTANCE

ABUSE

AA/NA‡

MITE Drug Counseling


AA/NA



* This list of programs available in each facility is based on those services documented in PCMS. Any programs not documented in PCMS are excluded because attendance information is unavailable. In addition, some programs are so new that sample cases did not have a chance to participate. These programs are also excluded. At JRF, these new programs include Young Parent Group/Teen Parenting (MITE Parenting Education). For Camp Barrett, these new programs include Substance Abuse Education, Culinary Arts, and Work Readiness.

** This categorization of services into domains was developed through discussions with program staff. + Though visits from family members while in custody may be related to success and while the Probation Department can provide

the opportunity for visitation, the actual occurrence of these visits is beyond the control of facility staff. ‡ Though JRF did not enter AA/NA attendance in PCMS at the time the data were collected, they provided the data manually. †

Though all wards are required to attend school unless they have previously earned a diploma or obtained a general educational development (GED) certificate, school attendance is not documented in PCMS.

SOURCE: San Diego County Probation Department



The sum of these factors produces a risk score and a protective score; when combined, these items yield a resiliency score. Resiliency scores are used to make classification decisions. Individuals with high resiliency (scores of 42 to 60) are classified for low levels of supervision. The medium level is characterized by resiliency scores of 18 to 41. High levels of supervision are indicated by scores from 1 to 17. Youth with negative resiliency scores require intensive supervision. The resiliency scores for the majority of youth in this evaluation were less than zero (99%), with the remaining one percent in the high category. This assessment is not surprising given that incarceration is an intervention reserved for extreme cases. For each of the 60 factors on the SDRRC, a youth can be given a rating of either “yes,” “somewhat,” “no,” or “unknown.” However, for these analyses, youth are considered as at-risk if they were scored as “yes” or “somewhat” on a risk factor, because there is room for improvement. Whereas, youth are considered as having a protective factor only if they were scored as “yes” (again, because those with a score of “somewhat” or “no” have room for improvement). This data source is used to determine the needs of the youth in the study compared to the services delivered while in custody, as shown in Table 2.1. Analyses of changes over time in risk, protective, and resiliency scores focus on the six domains rather than the 30 risk and 30 protective factors because there are high correlations between these subscale items, suggesting redundancy (Turner, Fain, & Sehgal, 2005). When interpreting data presented from the SDRRC, it is important to note that 8 of the 30 risk factors are static. That is, once an individual is rated as at-risk, this rating cannot change. These eight factors from four of the six domains include: prior arrests, offenses committed while under the influence, and assaultive behavior (delinquency domain); pattern of suspension/expulsion (educational domain); runaway behavior (family domain); and pattern of alcohol use, use of mood altering substances (other than alcohol), and early onset of substance use (substance use domain). In addition to examining changes in total scores (that include static factors), the analysis in this report presents details regarding the protective factors, none of which are static. School data regarding grade point average upon program entry, as well as at exit, was provided by school staff through administrative personnel at each facility and then forwarded to SANDAG staff to record and compile. Historical Sample Data for the historical sample were collected by Probation staff from State Parole records and Probation Department case files, as well as data converted from electronic records (including Regional Juvenile Information System (REJIS), the precursor to PCMS). Data collected included demographic information, length of stay in placement, successful completion of probation, treatment received while committed, and recidivism.6 SANDAG received a copy of the available data in an Excel spreadsheet. Though the historical sample includes Camp Barrett, RTF, and CYA cases, Camp Barrett youth are the only cases included in this study because the current sample does

6 The author of the Probation report noted that they encountered “significant errors and omissions in the information” due

to conversion errors from REJIS to PCMS, human error, and missing information.



not include the other two groups. The following list shows the data available for the historical sample:

age at the time of entry;

ethnicity;

length of stay;

gang association;

criminal history prior to placement;

recidivism within 6 months after release;

recidivism within 24 months after release;

type of programming during stay;

successful completion of probation;

GED or completion of high school upon release; and

employment status upon release. Analysis Plan Analyses are primarily descriptive for Project I and presented separately for JRF and Camp Barrett because each facility serves different populations. Camp Barrett is the sanction reserved for when placement at JRF was not successful or when the offense is severe. For JRF, the current sample is compared to the population from which the sample was drawn when possible, as well as by commitment type (i.e., Breaking Cycles and STOP). Comparisons for Camp Barrett are made to the historical sample, as well as the population. Demographic information, criminal history, needs, and services received are examined using frequency distributions and cross-tabulations. When comparisons can be made (i.e., to the population and/or historical sample) the following statistical tests are used to determine if differences are significant: Chi-square statistics for nominal measurement and difference of means tests for ratio level data (e.g., age). The relationship between needs and services received are explored using cross-tabulations. Changes in needs from entry to exit are assessed using the nonparametric sign test for two related samples. Project II: Recidivism Study Project Goal The primary goals of the recidivism study were to determine the effectiveness of local commitments in the rehabilitation of a youth, as measured by the reduction of re-offenses and type of contact with the justice (both juvenile and adult) system, and to assess factors that are predictive of program success (i.e., desistance from criminal behavior). Such elements include demographic and individual characteristics, needs, and services received. These variables are analyzed to determine if there are factors or a combination of factors that assist in rehabilitation of delinquent youth at JRF and Camp Barrett. In addition, interviews were conducted to collect qualitative data on a sample of youth to determine how they were doing in other areas of their lives one year after release.



Specific Research Questions

What is the level of recidivism for these youth up to two years after release from JRF and Camp Barrett?

What factors are predictive of program success (i.e., desistance from delinquency)?

How are youth doing in other parts of their lives after exiting the program? Sample Description Criminal activity information post release was collected for the 398 youth in the current sample previously described. For the Camp Barrett sample, the historical sample serves as the comparison group. In addition, a sample of 42 JRF and Camp Barrett youth from the current sample (of the 75 who signed a consent form agreeing to participate) were interviewed about their quality of life post release from a probation commitment. Data Sources SANDAG research staff members collected information about criminal behavior post release, which include arrest data from ARJIS and referral, petition, and commitment data from PCMS. Probation staff members at JRF and Camp Barrett provided exit dates for each youth in the sample. Based on these exit dates, data were collected at six-month intervals up to two years post release. Recidivism data also was collected from the San Diego County Sheriff’s and District Attorney’s databases for youth who turned 18 years old during the follow-up period. Along with the frequency of re-offense, data concerning the level and type of the highest charge were collected. In addition, data collectors logged any placements outside the home following release, as shown in PCMS. Recidivism data were collected for the historical sample as part of the baseline study conducted by the Probation Department. These data were compared to the current Camp Barrett sample’s recidivism data. Individual in-depth interviews were conducted with youth to collect information on how the youth was doing in the community, at school, and with family and peers one year after release from JRF or Camp Barrett. In addition, the interview provided the youth with an opportunity to provide feedback on the services and programs received while at the facility. Utilizing validated tools to the greatest extent possible, SANDAG created the interview instrument, which was reviewed by Probation prior to implementation. Prior to release from custody, consent was obtained from 75 youth. Of these individuals initially agreeing to participate, a confidential interview was conducted with 42 youth in person or over the telephone one year after release (a 56% response rate), and those that participated were compensated with a $20 gift card to a local retail establishment for their time and participation in the study. Analysis Plan Analysis of criminal activity data focuses on the six-month intervals following program release. Re-arrest is the most common measure of recidivism in criminal justice program evaluations. For example, in a report to the U.S. Congress, Sherman, Gottfredson, MacKenzie, Eck, Reuter, and



Bushway (1997) used re-arrest as the recidivism measure in all the programs reviewed nationwide. Further, re-arrest rather than true finding is the most common recidivism measure reported through meta-analysis (Lipsey & Wilson, 1998; Lipsey, 1992b). Because an individual is innocent until proven guilty, basing recidivism on sustained petitions is sometimes preferred. Therefore, a more broad view was utilized in this study. The regression analysis examined the proportion of youth recidivating by type (i.e., arrest, referral, true finding, and commitment/placement) in each period, as well as average number of each type of recidivism (i.e., arrests, referrals, true findings, and commitments), using the following four-step process. First, variability frequencies were computed on the following relevant variables to check for variability:

age;

ethnicity;

instant offense;

grade point average at intake;

average risk, protective, and resiliency SDRRC factors at program entry;

risk at program entry by SDRRC domain;

commitment type for JRF (Breaking Cycles, STOP, other);

level of criminality (based on criminal history) – average number of probation violations, arrests, arrests with peers, referrals, true findings, and commitments/placements, as well as highest charge (based on arrest, referral, and sustained petition);

prior commits to JRF and Camp Barrett;

programming received (by SDRRC domain, as well as for specific programs);

match between services received and needs (by SDRRC domain);

behavior during commitment (i.e., being AWOL and incidents during commitment (i.e., aggressor/perpetrator in a fight));

length of stay;

age at release;

average risk, protective, and resiliency factors at program exit;

received GED while during commitment;

grade point average at exit;

at grade level at exit; and

recidivism for the one year following release (using the same measures outlined above for criminal history, as well as days on the street, time in custody, and length of time between release and first arrest, referral, and sustained petition.

Those that did not have variability were removed from the analysis. Second, the remaining variables were entered into the model using zero-order logistic regression with arrested (or true findings) within twelve months of release as a dichotomous measure of recidivism. This step checked for a relationship between those variables and re-arrested or true



finding within twelve months of release. Variables that were associated with the dependent variables at a .10 significance level were kept in the model to ensure that all variables significantly related to recidivism were identified. Third, correlation analysis checked for multicollinearity (i.e., high correlations between predictor variables). For those variables that were highly correlated, the one with the strongest relationship was maintained and the other removed. Fourth, based on these results, multiple logistic regression was used to build a model of factors related to success. The one factor that multiple logistic regression does not handle well is time. Therefore, survival analysis using the Kaplan-Meier statistic was used to determine the impact of time on recidivism. The advantage of survival analysis is that arrests during the beginning of the evaluation period are treated differently than new crimes committed at the end of the follow-up period. Project III: Cost-Benefit Analysis Project Goal The goals of this third project were to estimate the comparative costs and benefits to the taxpayers and the County for juvenile commitment programs; document staff perception of the effectiveness of JRF and Camp Barrett; and identify model and promising programs effective with this population to assist Probation with future programming decisions. Specific Research Questions

What are staff perceptions regarding program effectiveness?

What are proven and promising programs from around the country that the Probation Department should further explore?

What are the costs and benefits associated with detaining the youth and providing services? Staff Perceptions: Sample Description and Data Source SANDAG, with input from Probation, created two survey instruments to capture staff opinions. The first was an in-depth survey that was sent to a convenience sample of 30 program staff in various positions at JRF and Camp Barrett in June 2006, including the directors of each facility, senior and deputy probation officers, administrative assistants, and program contractors (e.g., Phoenix House staff working in the institution). The purpose of this detailed survey was to examine the training and experience of staff, working environment, needs of wards, services provided, and effective ways to reduce recidivism. The second instrument was a more general survey (i.e., only one page and distributed by Probation directors to all staff directly in contact with detained youth). The purpose of this survey was to enable all staff working with youth at the institutions to provide input to the research project. This survey focused on two main areas: the behavior of delinquent youth and the role of detention staff. With respect to juvenile behavior, staff members were asked to rate a series of 12 statements on an ordinal scale from one to five, with one indicating “strongly agree,” three “neutral,” and five



“strongly disagree.” This same scale was used for 16 statements regarding the role of staff. Each statement included on this survey was adapted from previously validated instruments. Statements regarding staff role were taken from the Correctional Role Instrument developed by Hemmens and Stohr (2000). Youth behavior items were adapted from scales used by Robinson, Simourd, and Porporino (1992). Table 2.2 shows the quantity of in-depth surveys mailed and general surveys distributed at each facility, as well as the response rate by facility. Every effort was made to ensure confidentiality and increase the response rate. The use of an on-line survey was rejected due to potential staff distrust of the Internet as a secure method with guaranteed privacy protection. Postage-paid reply envelopes were included with each survey. At Probation’s suggestion, survey participants were asked to sign across the seal of the envelope before returning it to increase confidence that their answers were not reviewed prior to receipt by research staff. U.S. mail was used rather than County mail as another measure of assuring survey participants of the confidentiality of their responses. With respect to increasing the response rate, e-mail reminders were sent to those chosen to participate in the in-depth survey, and second copies were sent as requested. For the general survey, the directors encouraged staff to participate by emphasizing the value of their input during staff meetings.

Table 2.2 Staff Survey Samples

JRF Camp Barrett

In-depth Survey

Distributed 17 13

Returned 14 10

Response Rate 82% 77%

General Survey

Distributed 80 80

Returned 46 30

Response Rate 58% 38%

SOURCE: In-depth and General Staff Surveys administered by SANDAG

Promising Programs: Goal and Data Source Probation understands that the chances for success with youth are best when assistance is provided in the least-restrictive setting, especially when they can remain with their family in their community (i.e., Probation operates a variety of programs aimed at addressing the needs of youth along the continuum from prevention to early intervention to treatment to supervision with graduated sanctions). However, when institutional placement cannot be avoided (e.g., prior interventions have failed to change behavior or the nature of the delinquency dictates a more severe consequence), the goal is to turn detention into an opportunity by providing meaningful intervention and



treatment for this “captive” audience (Coalition for Juvenile Justice, 2000). Based on this philosophy, the purpose of this part of Project III was to provide Probation with new ideas for addressing the needs of incarcerated juveniles that have been shown to work. Further, information regarding current local efforts that show these strategies work can be used by Probation to seek funding to maintain these programs. To identify appropriate and effective program models for Probation, the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence’s (CSPV) Blueprints for Violence Prevention (2006) and the Surgeon General’s report, Youth Violence: A Report of the Surgeon General (2001) were used as the starting point for review. However, because both of these research frameworks apply strict criteria for classifying programs as “model” or “best practice” programs, the literature about programs that show promise but do not meet these standards also were reviewed. In addition, practices that exist within other juvenile institutions and may not have published articles but have demonstrated positive results also were searched. As such, research staff expanded their search by utilizing the following online sites and search engines:

The Annie E. Casey Foundation: www.aecf.org

Building Blocks for Youth: www.buildingblocksforyouth.org

California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare: www.cachildwelfareclearinghouse.org

California State Library: www.library.ca.gov

Center for Law and Social Policy: www.clasp.org

Correctional Education Association: www.ceanational.org

Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators: www.cjca.net

Education Resources Information Center: eric.ed.gov

Government Accountability Office: www.gao.gov

Google Scholar: www.googlescholar.com

Helping America’s Youth Tool: guide.helpingamericasyouth.gov/programtool.cfm

Juvenile Research and Statistics Association: www.jrsa.org

National Center for Juvenile Justice: www.ncjj.org

National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice: www.ncmhjj.com

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges: www.ncjfcj.org

National Council on Crime and Delinquency: www.nccd-crc.org

National Criminal Justice Reference Service: www.ncjrs.gov

National Institute of Corrections: www.nicic.org

National Institute of Justice: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij

National Mental Health Association: http://www.nmha.org/

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention: ojjdp.ncjrs.org

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Model Program Guide: www.dsgonline.com/mpg2.5/mpg_index.htm

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s (SAMHSA) National Registry of Evidence-Based Programs and Practices: nrepp.samhsa.gov

The Urban Institute: www.urban.org

Vera Institute of Justice: www.vera.org



Washington State Institute for Public Policy: www.wsipp.wa.gov/intro.asp The reference lists in each of the publications found through the Internet search were reviewed in order to find other relevant material. The literature review provided in Chapter 7 focuses on the following categories: academics, aftercare, aggression reduction, criminality, detention reform (i.e., risk assessment guided detention decisions and community justice), family-focused interventions, mental health treatment, reentry, substance use, use of force, and work readiness. All publications were reviewed and relevant material summarized for this report. To be included in this report, programs had to fall into one of the following categories:7

Proven through rigorous evaluation research design (scientific study using random assignment) and positive outcomes persist one year or longer after base-line;

Evaluated, but without a rigorous research design;

Not evaluated, but anecdotal evidence found positive outcomes; and

Outcomes show program to not be completely adequate. A total of 238 articles and reports were reviewed from a total of 38 states, the District of Columbia, and Canada. Cost-Benefit Model The cost-benefit analysis for this evaluation uses a cohort simulation model to estimate the costs and benefits of the CYA8 and Camp Barrett (CB). A cohort simulation model was developed for this study because the CYA and CB samples were very different from one another, and, thus, could not be controlled on key variables (such as length of stay and age of release) to determine which facility was more effective at rehabilitating juveniles. The model accounts for these differences by starting with two synthetic cohorts of 1,000 juveniles. The two cohorts were: 1) juveniles with characteristics of the year 2000 CYA sample (CYA cohort); and 2) juveniles with characteristics of the year 2000 Camp Barrett sample (CB cohort). Comparisons are made within each cohort by keeping the juvenile characteristics the same (length of stay, percent not reconvicted of a felony within one year of release, and average number of felony convictions prevented) while changing the facility characteristics (costs). It assumes that the characteristics of the juveniles would be the same whether they attended CYA or Camp Barrett and changes the program costs dependent upon the facility. Thus, the model simulates what the cost and benefits would be if each sample of youth attended the other facility, as well as the original cohort facility.

7 The starting point for the development of these categories came from the Blueprints for Violence Prevention (Center for

the Study and Prevention of Violence, 2006). They were modified to better meet the needs of Probation. 8 Though CYA is now called the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation - Division of Juvenile Justice, this

analysis refers to it as CYA because the data used are from the year 2000 when the department was still called CYA.



Since the model keeps the cohort characteristics the same regardless of which facility they attend, sensitivity analysis varies the recidivism rates and average number of felony convictions prevented which account for facility differences in their rehabilitative effectiveness. Thus, the model evaluates the costs of each facility in relation to its effectiveness at preventing future felonies. Cohort Simulation Model Steps (Base Case Model) The model was created in two Excel spreadsheets. One spreadsheet ran through steps with the initial cohorts – CYA cohort at CYA and Camp Barrett cohort at Camp Barrett. The second spreadsheet assumed the CYA cohort attends Camp Barrett and the Camp Barrett cohort attended CYA by changing the facility costs. The steps of the model are shown in the diagrams on the next two pages. Step 1: The model begins with a synthetic cohort of 1,000 juveniles: 1) the CYA cohort, and 2) the

Camp Barrett cohort. Each cohort is assumed to attend both facilities and comparisons are made within the cohort based on the facility they are assumed to attend.

Calculating Costs Step 2: Costs were based on the facility each cohort was assumed to attend. The costs were

calculated by adding up the program (facility) costs plus sliding scale costs to County (if attending CYA) plus aftercare costs.

Program Costs – The program cost per day (either CYA or Camp Barrett) was multiplied by length of stay (days). Each cohort was given the same length of stay distribution as the corresponding year 2000 sample. For example, the CYA cohort got its length of stay distribution from the year 2000 CYA sample and the Camp Barrett cohort got its length of stay distribution from the year 2000 Camp Barrett sample. These cohort distributions stayed the same regardless of which facility they were assumed to attend. The program costs were calculated for each cohort twice, once assuming they attend CYA and once assuming they attend Camp Barrett. Sliding Scale Costs – The County is required to pay monthly fees to the State when local youth are sent to CYA. The fee schedule is based on the level of offense committed. In an effort to deter counties from sending lesser offenders to CYA, it costs more to send lesser offenders than more serious offenders.



Figure 2.1 Cohort Simulation Model Steps, CYA Cohort

Benefits: Criminal Justice System Cost Offsets Costs for:

[Police (arrest and investigation), court activities (a proportion receiving services), public defender (a proportion receiving services) * felony arrests prevented] +[Jail, prison, probation, parole * time served] =

Savings to the Criminal Justice System from crimes prevented

Benefits: Victim Cost Offsets Victim cost per offense * Crimes prevented by offense type = Savings to Victims from crimes prevented

Number of felony arrests prevented by offense type / Ratio of arrests to offenses committed by offense type = Number of crimes prevented by offense type

Number of offenders not reconvicted of a felony * Average number of felony convictions prevented = Number of felony convictions prevented

Number of felony convictions prevented / Ratio of convictions to arrests = Number of felony arrests prevented

Benefits/Costs = Benefit-Cost Ratio

Number of felony convictions prevented * A proportion who receive one or more of the following: jail, prison, probation, and/or parole * Average time served for corresponding jail, prison, probation, and/or

parole sentence = Person years served for jail, prison, probation, and parole

3

4

8

9

10

11

Number of felony arrests prevented * Distribution of adult felony offense by type = Number of felony arrests prevented by offense type

Number of felony arrests prevented by offense type * Ratio of convictions to arrests by offense type = Number of felony convictions prevented by offense

5

6

7

CYA Cohort1,000 Juveniles At Camp

Barrett At CYA

Costs [CYA program cost per day * (1000 * CYA sample

distribution of length of stay in days)]+[Average sliding scale cost per day * (1000 * CYA sample distribution of

length of stay in days)] +[Daily aftercare cost * % receiving * average # days on aftercare]

1

2 Costs

[Camp Barrett program cost per day * (1000 * CYA sample distribution of length of stay in days)]+ [Daily aftercare cost * % receiving *

average # days on aftercare]

2

SOURCE: SANDAG PEACE Final Report



Figure 2.2 Cohort Simulation Model Steps, Camp Barrett Cohort

Benefits: Criminal Justice System Cost Offsets Costs for:

[Police (arrest and investigation), court activities (a proportion receiving services), public defender (a proportion receiving services) * felony arrests prevented] + [Jail, prison, probation, parole * time served] =

Savings to the Criminal Justice System from crimes prevented

Benefits: Victim Cost Offsets Victim cost per offense * Crimes prevented by offense type = Savings to Victims from crimes prevented

Number of felony arrests prevented by offense type / Ratio of arrests to offenses committed by offense type = Number of crimes prevented by offense type

Number of offenders not reconvicted of a felony * Average number of felony convictions prevented = Number of felony convictions prevented

Number of felony convictions prevented / Ratio of convictions to arrests = Number of felony arrests prevented

Benefits/Costs = Benefit-Cost Ratio

Number of felony convictions prevented * A proportion who receive one or more of the following: jail, prison, probation, and/or parole * Average time served for corresponding jail, prison, probation, and/or

parole sentence = Person years served for jail, prison, probation, and parole

3

4

8

9

10

11

Number of felony arrests prevented * Distribution of adult felony offenses by type = Number of felony arrests prevented by offense type

Number of felony arrests prevented by offense type * Ratio of convictions to arrests by offense type = Number of felony convictions prevented by offense

5

6

7

Camp Barrett Cohort1,000 Juveniles

At CYA At Camp Barrett

Costs [Camp Barrett program cost per day * (1000 *

Camp Barrett sample distribution of length of stay in days)] + [Daily aftercare cost * % receiving *

average # days on aftercare]

1

2 Costs

[CYA program cost per day * (1000 * CB sample distribution of length of stay in days)] + [Average sliding

scale cost per day * (1000 * CB sample distribution of length of stay in days)]+[Daily aftercare cost * % receiving

* average # days on aftercare]

2




An average daily cost for both cohorts was calculated, but this cost was only added when the cohort was assumed to be attending CYA. The 2000 samples did not include offense type. Thus, assumptions had to be made about the distribution of offense types for each cohort. The average daily cost was computed for the CYA cohort using the 2000 offense level distribution shown in Table B3 in Appendix B. The Camp Barrett cohort assumed an offense level distribution of the 2005 Camp Barrett sample (Appendix Table B4). These distributions were applied to the corresponding cohort to get the number of juveniles to multiply by the monthly costs for each offense level. The monthly distribution was multiplied by 12 to get a yearly cost, then divided by 1,000 to get an average annual cost per juvenile, and then it was divided by 365.25 to get an average daily cost. The final step was multiplying the average daily sliding cost to each cohort’s length of stay distribution. Aftercare Costs – Since all juveniles may not have received probation or parole after release from CYA or Camp Barrett, only a percentage were assumed to have received aftercare (CYA = 80.0%9 and Camp Barrett = 72.5%).10 For each cohort, this percentage was multiplied by 1,000; then that number was multiplied by the daily cost of aftercare times the average length of aftercare in days. This percentage, along with the average length of aftercare, stayed the same for each cohort regardless of which facility they were assumed to attend. The only change within a cohort was the daily cost that was based on the facility they were assumed to attend. Calculating Benefits Step 3: The next step was to determine the number of felony convictions prevented within one

year of release. This model started with felony convictions because the 2000 sample data measured recidivism as felony convictions.

Using the 2000 sample for each cohort, the number of juveniles who were not reconvicted within one year of release was calculated.11 This figure was different between the two cohorts, but the same within each cohort regardless of which facility they were assumed to attend. Again, using the 2000 sample, the average number of felony convictions per offender was calculated. The total number of felony convictions was divided by the number of offenders to get this figure. The assumption is that those not re-offending would have re-offended at this same rate if they had re-offended. This figure translates into the average number of felony convictions prevented. These two figures, number not re-offending and average number of felonies prevented, were multiplied to get the total number of felony convictions prevented.

9 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Department of Juvenile Justice, Office of Research 10 San Diego County Probation Department 11 The data were restricted to cases that had been released for at least four years because all Camp Barrett cases had been

released for four or more years; and thus, it was appropriate to control CYA to the same parameters for consistency across cohorts.



Step 4: The number of felony convictions prevented was converted to the number of felony arrests prevented. The convictions had to be converted to arrests so that a distribution of offense types could be calculated (Step 5). The offense type distribution was only available for arrests.

For each cohort, the total number of felony convictions prevented was multiplied by a ratio of convictions to arrests to get the number of felony arrests prevented. Step 5: The total number of felony arrests was converted into a distribution of arrests by offense

type. The same distribution of San Diego County’s adult felony arrests by offense type for the year 2000 was applied to the total number of felony arrests prevented for each cohort.12 This distribution is shown in Table B5 in Appendix B.

Step 6: Next, the felony arrests prevented by offense type was converted back into felony

convictions prevented by offense type using a ratio of convictions to arrests by offense type. This process was done for both cohorts.

Step 7: The next step was to calculate the saved time served (i.e., jail, prison, probation, and/or

parole). Using the California average jail months served and the average prison months served by offense type for the year 2000, the total person years in jail and/or prison was determined for each cohort (Table B6 in Appendix B).

The total person years for jail was calculated by first dividing the average jail time in months by 12 to get an annual figure, then that annual figure was multiplied by the number of felony convictions (by offense type) times a proportion of convicted felons who received jail. The final step was to add all of the person years for each offense together to get total person years served. The total person years for prison, probation, and parole were calculated using the same method as jail (Tables B6 and B7 in Appendix B). Step 8: The benefits for the criminal justice system were calculated as savings to the system from

arrests and convictions prevented. Savings were calculated as:

Police savings = cost of arrest and investigation multiplied by felony arrests prevented;

Court activities savings = court costs multiplied by felony arrests prevented times a proportion receiving services;

Public defender savings for Class III felonies = public defender costs multiplied by Class III felony arrests prevented times a proportion receiving services;

Public defender savings for Class IV felonies = public defender costs multiplied by Class IV felony arrests prevented times a proportion receiving services;

Jail savings = daily cost times 365.25 to get an annual cost, then annual cost is multiplied by the total jail person years served;

12 The adult felony arrests distribution was used because the vast majority of both samples were 18 and over. All benefits are

based on adult re-offending.



Prison savings = daily cost times 365.25 to get an annual cost, then annual cost is multiplied by the total prison person years served;

Probation savings = daily cost times 365.25 to get an annual cost, then annual cost is multiplied by the total probation person years served; and

Parole savings = daily cost times 365.25 to get an annual cost, then annual cost is multiplied by the total parole person years served.

All these savings were added together to get a criminal justice benefits figure for each cohort. Step 9: Since the model included savings to possible victims, the arrests prevented needed to be

converted to crimes prevented by offense type. This conversion was achieved by taking the felony arrests by offense type and dividing it by a ratio of arrests to offenses committed by offense type.

Step 10: The benefits to potential victims also were calculated as savings from crimes prevented.

These cost offsets include productivity losses, out-of-pocket social service and medical expenses, police/fire services, property loss or damage, and quality of life (Miller, Cohen, & Wiersema, 1996). The costs were initially in 1993 dollars and were inflated to 2000 dollars using the Consumer Price Index (CPI).

Crimes prevented by offense type were multiplied by cost per victimization for each offense type and were added together to get the total victim savings. Step 11: The final step of the base case was to calculate benefit-cost ratios for each cohort and for

each assumed facility within the cohort. Thus, there are four groups and four benefit-cost ratios. The four groups are: CYA cohort detained at CYA, CYA cohort detained at Camp Barrett, Camp Barrett cohort detained at Camp Barrett, and Camp Barrett cohort detained at CYA. Comparisons of benefit-cost ratios are made within each cohort (i.e., CYA cohort detained at CYA compared to CYA cohort detained at Camp Barrett).

For each group, the costs in Step 2 were added together to get a total cost figure and the criminal justice system savings (Step 8) and victim savings (Step 10) were added together to get a total benefits figure. Then, the total benefits were divided by total costs to get the benefit-cost ratio for each group.13

13 The costs and benefits were initially in 2000-01 dollars and were inflated to 2006-07 dollars using the Consumer Price

Index. However, since the output is measured in benefit-cost ratios, the dollar figures do not need to be inflated.



Cohort Simulation Model Sensitivity Analysis The sensitivity analysis had three parts: 1) varying the number not reconvicted of a felony within one year; 2) varying the average number of felony convictions prevented; and 3) varying both simultaneously using a Monte Carlo technique. A range of benefit-cost ratios was created for each group within the cohort. Again, like in the base case model, comparisons were made within each cohort.

Varying the Recidivism Rate In the base case model, the number of those not reconvicted of a felony within one year was determined from the year 2000 sample. This main assumption was one of the driving forces behind the calculation of benefits. Thus, it was important to check this assumption using a range of values. In this case, the range started at 0 and increased in increments of 250 until it reached 1,000. These new values were manually plugged into the spreadsheets already created. All other model parameters were kept the same. A range of benefit-cost ratios were calculated for the groups within each cohort. The two sets of ranges within a cohort were analyzed using a scatter plot.

Varying the Average Number of Felonies Like the recidivism rate, the base case model garnered the average number of felony convictions prevented from the year 2000 sample. Again, this assumption was used to calculate the number of crimes, arrests, and convictions; and thus, was a key assumption for determining benefits. The sample data had a minimum of zero and a maximum of two felonies. As such, 0.1 to 2.0 was the range of values plugged into the model. Starting with 0.1, the model tested values in increments of 0.1. All other model parameters were kept the same. A range of benefit-cost ratios were calculated for the groups within each cohort. The two sets of ranges were analyzed using a scatter plot.

Varying Both Sensitivity analysis also tested the 90 percent confidence intervals of two assumptions at the same time. Both the number not reconvicted of a felony offense and average number of felony convictions prevented were each given 1,000 draws (random numbers) that were input into the model simultaneously. The random numbers were restricted to a range set by the 90 percent confidence intervals of the figures used in the base case scenario.14 The analysis used a uniform distribution within the ranges because it assumed that any number within the range was just as likely to occur as any other number. Microsoft Excel was used for this analysis. Copies of both base case model spreadsheets were created. Using the random number generator tool, 1,000 random numbers within the 90 percent

14 The ranges for offenders without new convictions were 62.2% to 92.4% for the CYA cohort and 57.7% to 77.9% for the

Camp Barrett cohort. The average number of felony convictions prevented ranges were 0.87 to 1.53 for the CYA cohort and 1.02 to 1.30 for the Camp Barrett cohort.



confidence intervals were created for the two assumptions for each cohort. The same random numbers were used for both groups within a cohort. A macro was created that input each value into the model, starting with the first random number for felony convictions prevented. Each pair was input to the model, and the macro saved out the new benefit-cost ratio each time. The result was 1,000 benefit-cost ratios for each group within each cohort (i.e., four sets of benefit-cost ratio ranges). The average of each range was calculated and compared within the cohorts. Additionally, the ratios were graphed using a scatter plot to see if any of the benefit-cost ratio ranges overlapped within a cohort. POSSIBLE STUDY LIMITATIONS As is the case in conducting any real world research project, there are a number of ethical and practical factors that limit the implementation of the most rigorous and scientifically valid research methodologies. These are described below as a reminder when interpreting findings.

Lack of Experimental Design: Due to ethical considerations, this study did not include random assignment of youth to a facility or comparison group. Rather, a historical sample was used for comparison for Camp Barrett clients. It is possible that these youth, who were committed at an earlier point in time, differed in some way from those committed more recently, which could explain later differences in outcomes between the two groups.

No Comparison Group for the JRF Sample: As noted earlier, because there was no historical JRF sample and ethical considerations prohibited randomization to a commitment facility, the data collected for the JRF sample lacks a comparison group, limiting the conclusions that can be reached from these analyses.

Reliance on Archival Data: While research staff members were able to work with Probation staff to encourage reliable collection of data related to the current group, this was not possible for the historical group. Therefore, some data elements may not be comparable, and the historical data may be limited due to different methods of documentation.

Variations in Administration of SDRRC: As mentioned in the previous chapter, the SDRRC is administered to delinquents throughout their time under supervision by Probation. For JRF, the entry SDRRC is completed by Breaking Cycles probation officers upon intake to the facility. For Camp Barrett, the SDRRC administered at arrest is used for the “entry” measure. For both groups the exit measure is estimated by the date in the SDRRC file from Assessments.com that coincides most closely with the date of release (within a three-month window). There is no guarantee that the same probation officer completes the assessments over time.

Limited Comparison: Research staff members are dependent on the types of data that were collected by Probation staff for the historical group. It is possible that the same variables were operationalized in different ways across the historical and current samples.

Limited Focus on Process Evaluation: While data regarding service provision (type and amount) was compiled, the current scope of work does not include documenting whether the services were provided as designed or intended.



Youth May Receive Other Services: It is possible that the youth in both the historical and current groups received services or interventions through the Probation Department or other local service providers outside the institutional facilities that may have had an impact on their behavior and success. Due to the scope and focus of this study, tracking these other services was not practicable nor feasible.

Limitations of Methodology for Cost Analysis: It is important to note that any weaknesses in the sample design of the year 2000 samples that were used in this study to calculate costs (using the length of stay distribution) for both cohorts could weaken this study’s conclusions. The cost component is the driving force in the benefit-cost ratio, because it represents the differences between the two facilities within each cohort (i.e., the benefit amount is the same within each cohort, but the costs are different). Thus, it should be noted that the year 2000 samples, while random, were small (CYA = 47 and Camp Barrett = 59). Additionally, this study looks at recidivism within one year of release and considers the short-term benefits of both facilities. As a result, the overall benefits may be underestimated. Therefore, this analysis is meant to be used as a comparison between the cost-effectiveness of the two facilities and not as a stand-alone analysis of any one facility. The results are reported as benefit-cost ratios instead of present net benefits because of this underestimate. Present net benefits would not be a good measure because it underestimates the total benefits. Benefit-cost ratios, on the other hand, are sound measures because they are relative to one another.

SUMMARY SANDAG was contracted by the San Diego County Probation Department to conduct a study on the effectiveness and cost of local placement of juvenile male offenders. This study is a follow-up and response to the recommendations set forth in Probation’s 2004 preliminary report on local placement options. The research design for this study included three projects: program analysis, recidivism study, and a cost-benefit analysis. Each of the projects addressed specific research questions to assist Probation in its assessment of what are the most effective (both in terms of cost and outcomes) and appropriate programming options for the commitment of youth. As described in this chapter, a variety of methods were included in the research design, including documenting client characteristics and exit status, collecting recidivism data from ARJIS and PCMS, conducting in-depth interviews with youth at JRF and Camp Barrett, surveying program staff, assessing costs and benefits of local placement, and reviewing promising practices.

CHAPTER 3 PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND RECIDIVISM:

JUVENILE RANCH FACILITY


MAJOR FINDINGS

On average, youth committed to JRF had five prior arrests and two sustained petitions.

JRF youth were highly at risk in most of the assessed areas and entered the facility with few protective factors to buffer against delinquency.

Youth stayed at JRF under two months, on average, although there was significant variation by commitment type.

Within the first year following release from the facility, 40 percent remained arrest-free, 60 percent did not have a true finding for a new offense, and 69 percent were not re-committed to an institutional setting.

Of the youth that recidivated 12 months following release, 82 percent were re-arrested for a less severe offense.

Of the youth terminated from probation, 59 percent were deemed “successful” according to court hearings and probation reports.

CHAPTER 3 PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND RECIDIVISM: JUVENILE RANCH FACILITY

INTRODUCTION As part of Project I (Program Analysis), three research questions were posed regarding the characteristics and needs of youth entering the two juvenile Probation facilities, the type and amount of service provided to meet these needs, and how the needs of these populations have changed over time.1 For the current chapter, information is provided regarding the 238 youth who were randomly selected from the population of wards who entered the Juvenile Ranch Facility (JRF) between August 2005 and May 2006. The data collected include demographic characteristics, criminal history, information regarding needs and protective factors captured by Probation staff using the San Diego Regional Resiliency Checkup (SDRRC), and information regarding placement. To ensure the ability of study findings to be generalized, a comparison of the current sample to the population overall also is presented. Information regarding the services these youth received while detained at the facility is described. One-year, follow-up data are presented to address the first and third questions posed as part of Project II (Recidivism), as well as additional analyses regarding factors associated with program success. In addition, two-year, follow-up data are presented for youth that were released prior to December 31, 2005.

1 Because a historical comparison group was not available for JRF youth, this last question is focused on the Camp Barrett

sample for Project I (Program Analysis) portion of this study, which is presented in Chapter 4.



SAMPLE DESCRIPTION Between August 2005 and May 2006, 828 youth entered the program at JRF, 2382 of whom were randomly selected to be part of this study (29% of the population). For the sampling, youth were categorized as entering JRF through one of three commitment types: Breaking Cycles, Short-Term Offender Program (STOP), and JRF direct commit or Drug Court commit (all others). For each of the 10 months between August 2005 and May 2006, 23 to 25 youth were randomly sampled, including 15 to 16 Breaking Cycles commits, 6 STOP commits, and 1 to 3 individuals with other commits (i.e., Drug Court and direct commits). These sampling proportions were determined by examining the proportions of youth at each facility and commitment types from January through June 2005 and then applying these proportions to the population entering since August 2005. Demographics and Other Characteristics To show the representative nature of the sample, information regarding offender characteristics was collected for the sample and compared to the general JRF population. Specifically, ethnicity, age, and commitment type are compared. All wards at JRF are male. As Figure 3.1 shows, the JRF sample mirrored the characteristics of the JRF population, with slightly over half described as Hispanic, around one in five each described as Black or White, and the remainder representing other ethnicities. The average age of the sample and the population also was similar at 15 years of age (sample mean = 15.53, SD = 1.09, range 12 to 17; population mean = 15.47, SD = 1.13, range 12 to 18) (not shown).

Figure 3.1 Juvenile Ranch Facility Sample and Population Ethnicity

18% 18%

55%

9%

17% 20%

56%

7%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

White Black Hispanic Other

Sample (n = 238) Population (n = 828)

SOURCE: Research Unit, San Diego County Probation Department and SANDAG 2 The original sample was 240; however, one ward passed away during the study period, and it was discovered through the

data collection process that one person never actually entered the facility. Both cases were removed from the sample.



Figure 3.2 shows the commitment type for both the sample and population. The majority of each group was sent to JRF through the Breaking Cycles program (66% of the sample and 57% of the population), followed by STOP (25% and 38%, respectively) and other commitments (8% and 4%) (i.e., Drug Court and direct commits).

Figure 3.2 Juvenile Ranch Facility Sample and Population Commitment Type

8%

25%

66%

4%

38%

57%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Breaking Cycles STOP Other

Sample (n = 238) Population (n = 828)

NOTE: Percentages do not equal 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: Research Unit, San Diego County Probation Department and SANDAG Criminal History SANDAG researchers collected arrest, referral, and sustained petition information for each youth in the JRF sample. These data were collected for the period before commitment to the facility in order to understand the differences in criminal history for the youth and how this might relate to later recidivism. It should be noted that since all of the youth were at JRF, each youth has a history of at least one arrest, referral, and petition. However, some of these youth did not initially receive a commitment to JRF as a result of a sustained petition, but were ordered to serve commitment time due to a probation violation. Of the 238 youth in the sample, 54 percent (or 129 cases) were committed to JRF due to a new referral that resulted in a sustained petition, with the remaining 46 percent in custody due to a probation violation. Sixty-seven percent (67%) of the instant offenses were arrests for felony charges, and about half (50%) were for property offenses (not shown).



Recent research has found that youth are more likely to recidivate if arrested with a peer (McCord & Conway, 2005). Eighty percent (80%) of the 238 JRF youth committed a crime with a peer. The average number of arrests with a co-offender prior to entering the sample was 2.08 arrests (SD = 1.78, range 0 to 10) (not shown). As Figure 3.3 shows, the youth committed to JRF and sampled for the study had a mean of 4.90 prior arrests (SD = 3.18, range = 1 to 26), 3.42 prior referrals (SD = 2.32, range 1 to 19), and 1.91 prior sustained petitions (SD = 1.21, range = 1 to 9), all of which included the instant offense. In addition, over three-quarters (79%) had at least one prior institutional commitment and an average of 150 commitment days3 to JRF, STOP, Breaking Cycles, Camp Barrett, or Juvenile Hall prior to entering into the study sample. Additional analyses revealed that a youth’s age at the time of commitment was not significantly related to prior criminal history (not shown).

Figure 3.3 Prior Arrests, Referrals, and Sustained Petitions

Juvenile Ranch Facility Sample

4.90

3.42

1.91

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

Arrests Referrals Sustained Petitions

TOTAL = 238


3 This figure is based on the median because the distribution is skewed. The mean was 210.52 (SD = 202.75, range = 0 to

1,575).



In terms of the highest charge on a prior sustained petition, around two in three of the JRF sample (70%) previously had a true finding for a felony-level offense. For the other one-third (30%), the highest true finding was for a misdemeanor (again including the instant offense) (not shown). As Table 3.1 shows, the most common offense type on a prior or current sustained petition was for a property offense (48%), with slightly more than one-quarter having a true finding for a violent offense (29%), 18 percent for an other offense (e.g., possession of weapons, trespassing, or driving under the influence of alcohol), and 5 percent for a drug offense.

Table 3.1 Violation Type for Highest Sustained Petition


Violent 29%

Property 48%

Drug 5%

Other 18% TOTAL 238

SOURCE: SANDAG PEACE Final Report Needs Assessment The SDRRC is a case management tool implemented at all levels of probation. In general, probation officers complete an SDRRC at intake into the program at six-month intervals following intake and at exit, as well as any time the youth has re-offended or risk appears to have changed and a new assessment is needed. This tool allows Probation to assess protective and risk factors in six domains (family, peer, individual, delinquency, substance use, and education) and develop a case plan4 according to this information. These risk factors identify the youth’s needs, and the case plan addresses these needs through probation supervision and service provision. Protective factors measure areas potentially curbing criminal behavior. At JRF, the Breaking Cycles Probation Officer completes SDRRCs for each youth prior to entry into the facility. To ensure that as many cases were included as possible, a three-month window prior to the program entry date was used as the criteria for inclusion as an “intake” SDRRC. For the 238 youth in the JRF sample, SANDAG received 169 intake SDRRCs.

4 For this project, case plan information was not available; however, data regarding services received are discussed.



Risk and Resiliency Profile at Intake The risk, protective, and resiliency profile for wards upon entering JRF is shown in Figure 3.4. The risk and protective scores are each based on 30 factors. On average, these youth were rated as having 4.70 of 30 protective factors (SD = 3.59, range 0 to 21) and 21.24 risk factors (SD = 4.56, range 0 to 30) out of 30 on average. Another way to look at risk and protective factors is resiliency. Total resiliency is computed by subtracting the risk score from the protective score. Therefore, a youth with no risk factors and every protective factor would have a resiliency score of +30, and a juvenile with 30 risk factors and no protective factors would have a resiliency score of -30. On average, about 17 more risk factors impact these wards than protective factors (SD = 6.91, range -29 to 12). This profile is not surprising given the target population for this facility is youth who have issues that cannot be addressed in the community due to the severity of the offense or prior poor performance under community supervision.

Figure 3.4 Assessment Scores at Intake


4.70

21.24

-16.53-20.00

-15.00

-10.00

-5.00

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

Total Protective Total Risk Total Resiliency

TOTAL = 169

SOURCE: San Diego Regional Resiliency Checkup (SDRRC) and SANDAG The number of protective factors for JRF youth did not vary by commitment type at intake, but the number of risk factors did. Specifically, STOP commitments had the highest average risk score (10.90, SD = 4.02, range 3 to 21), followed by other commitments (9.07, SD = 4.53, range 3 to 19) (i.e., Drug Court and direct commits) and Breaking Cycles commitments (8.30, SD = 3.61, range 0 to 19) (not shown).



To examine this profile in more detail, the proportion of wards at JRF with at least one risk factor in each of the six domains is shown in Figure 3.5. Consistent with the mean risk score data, these wards can be considered high risk with over 90 percent assessed with at least one risk factor, ranging from 91 percent at-risk in the substance use domain to 99 percent with risk factors in the individual, delinquency, and peer risk domains. The individual domain includes youth with no pro-social interests and anger management issues, as well as those who are sensation seeking, supportive of delinquency, and manipulative and/or deceitful. For the delinquency domain, these youth often have prior arrests, live in neighborhoods with significant crime, commit offenses while under the influence, are assaultive, and/or have a delinquent orientation. The following factors are included in the peer domain: social isolation, few pro-social acquaintances, gang affiliation, delinquent friends, and no meaningful relationships with adults.

Figure 3.5 Risk Factors by Domain at Intake


99% 99% 99% 98% 97%91%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Individual Delinquency Peer Education Family SubstanceUse

TOTAL = 266

SOURCE: San Diego Regional Resiliency Checkup (SDRRC) and SANDAG



Figure 3.6 presents the percent of wards with at least one protective factor in each of the six domains. With respect to protective factors, there is more variability across domains with about two-thirds (69%) of the youth having protective factors in the family domain, compared to four percent for the individual domain. As the most common domain, family protective factors include good communication, constructive use of time, family activities, family support, and unconditional regard from a parent. Interestingly, the areas of highest risk (individual and delinquency) also have the lowest percent of clients with any protective factors.

Figure 3.6 Protective Factors by Domain at Intake


69%63% 62%

51%

37%

4%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Family Peer SubstanceUse

Education Delinquency Individual

TOTAL = 266

SOURCE: San Diego Regional Resiliency Checkup (SDRRC) and SANDAG The specific factors assessed within each domain5 were examined individually because, as will be discussed in Chapter 6, some of these areas are considered by facility staff as important in redirecting behavior away from delinquency.

In the family domain, few youth at JRF constructively used time at home (3%), communicated well with family members (13%), or participated in family activities (17%). However, about half (53%) received support from family members, and about two-thirds (66%) felt unconditional regard from parent(s).

For the peer domain, few were assessed as having positive peer relations (2%), valuing the dignity and rights of others (2%), communicating disagreements (4%), or making friends easily (17%). There was one protective area that more than half shared: having someone to confide in (59%).

5 Each domain was described in Chapter 2.



The area of greatest strength in the substance abuse category included healthy moderation modeled by parent(s) (57%). However, few managed stress well (1%), managed peer pressure effectively (4%), were free of distressing habits (4%), or had a positive self concept (12%).

Specific educational factors that were rare for JRF youth included attachments with academic achievers (6%), school engangement or bonds (8%), positive interactions with teachers (10%), and educational aspirations (15%). The one area of strength for almost half of the wards involved a caring and supportive school climate (47%).

Factors related to delinquency revealed few youth with support in the com-munity (17%), prosocial adult relations (17%), involvement in community organizations (16%), a faith community (15%), or extensive structured activities (1%).

The overall proportion of youth with protective factors in the individual domain was lowest of the six domains assessed. Similarly, each protective factor within this domain was rare. None had self control or self efficacy in prosocial roles, and few had problem solving skills (1%), planned, organized, and completed tasks (1%), or valued honesty /integrity (2%).

INFORMATION REGARDING PLACEMENT While the youth who were selected as part of this sample entered JRF between August 2005 and May 2006, they could have actually been committed at an earlier point in time. The length of time between commitment and admittance is of interest because it could be a reflection of a greater need for bed space at a given facility. The mean number of days between commitment and entering the facility was 21.11 (SD = 15.99, range 1 to 161 days). Additional analyses by commitment type revealed significant differences such that Breaking Cycles commitments had a greater number of days between commitment and admission to JRF compared to STOP and other commits (i.e., Drug Court and direct commits) (27.53 days, versus 7.57 and 10.95, respectively). This difference is due in part to the fact that Breaking Cycles encompasses the philosophy of graduated sanctions, and an out-of-home commitment may not be initially deemed most appropriate for the youth. Further the

Mario was a declared a ward of the court in 2006 for burglary and petty theft. After repeated probation violations over the course of a year, he was committed to the JRF program. While in camp, he took advantage of the services offered, including the Phoenix House Therapeutic Community program, school attendance, and individual counseling. When he returned home, Mario immediately got involved with sports as a means to stay away from his use of drugs. He continued his high school education, with graduation anticipated in June 2008. Although he was employed briefly, he felt it was more important to focus on his education. He has attended AA/NA groups about twice a week. In a phone conversation to staff, he shared, “My peers should listen to their family’s advice and make better choices in life. They should also stay away from all the negative influences that drive them to criminal behavior.” Mario has been “drug free” since being released from JRF and hopes to be terminated from probation in May 2008.

–Description by JRF staff




length of time required to complete the assessment process for Breaking Cycles is lengthy, about three weeks (not shown). As of December 2006, all 238 clients had exited their placement at JRF. The mean number of days served6 at the facility overall was 56.39 (SD = 40.18, range 4 to 297). This length of stay varied by commitment type, as expected. Specifically, the 158 youth who had exited after a Breaking Cycles commitment spent an average of 73.38 days at JRF (SD = 36.51, range 13 to 297), STOP commitments spent an average of 14.02 days (SD = 7.03, range 4 to 35), and those committed under other conditions spent an average of 49.30 days (SD = 29.07, range 4 to 87).

Figure 3.7 Average Length of Stay (Days) by Commitment Type


73.38

14.02

49.3056.93

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

Breaking Cycles STOP Other Total

TOTAL = 238


SERVICES RECEIVED As presented in Chapter 1, a commitment to JRF involves more than just “serving time.” Youth are required to participate in a number of programs. Table 3.2 shows the proportion of wards assessed as needing services in each of the six domains included on the SDRRC for the 169 cases with intake SDRRC assessments (also shown in Figure 3.5). In addition, for those youth with needs in each area, the proportion receiving at least one service, regardless of the level or amount of participation to address that issue is shown. 7 As outlined in Chapter 1, JRF provides an array of programs to address

6 Though consecutive, these days could have included transfers between facilities for administrative removal or other

reasons. When the transfer was for administrative reasons (i.e., disciplinary action), the number of days counted toward fulfillment of the commitment was stopped until the youth was returned to JRF.

7 Though the intensity of service participation (e.g., number of classes attended) and fidelity of the services provided (i.e., was program implemented as designed) are not known, communication with Probation staff indicate that, as a requirement of detention, youth do fully attend the services offered. Therefore, despite the lack of complete documentation of this attendance discovered in the analysis of the data, it is assumed that any participation is synonymous with full compliance. However, there is no assurance that the issues identified in the domain correspond to the issues focused upon within the programs received.



the needs of wards staying in the facility (Table 1.1), not all of which are documented in the Probation Case Management System (PCMS). The analysis presented in Table 3.2 required individual level data, which is only compiled in PCMS; therefore, the specific services considered as addressing each need were restricted to those documented in PCMS as previously described in Table 2.1. Appendix Table A3 shows the proportion of JRF wards receiving each type of service. This categorization of the programs into the six domains was based on discussions with program staff. As shown in Table 3.2, JRF links wards to services in many areas. Almost all of those in need received services related to the individual and delinquency domains. Programs that address both individual and delinquency needs at JRF include: Alcoholics Anonymous/Narcotics Anonymous (AA/NA) meetings, Aggression Replacement Training (ART), Character Counts, McAllister Institute for Treatment and Education (MITE) drug counseling, and the Phoenix House Therapeutic Community. In addition, over three-quarters (78%) of the wards in need of services to address family issues participated in ART and/or Character Counts, as well as received visits from family (the only program including family members, rather than focusing directly on the youth). Less than half of the youth received at least one visit from a family member during their stay in JRF (not shown). Almost three-quarters (70%) of those with substance use needs attended AA/NA meetings, received MITE drug counseling, and/or participated in the Phoenix House Therapeutic Community. Academic needs were addressed through the literacy program for 60 percent of those in need.8 Needs in the peer domain seemed to be the most difficult to address at JRF, with only about half (51%) of those needing services in this area receiving ART or Character Counts, the only two programs that address peer issues that are available at JRF and documented in PCMS.

Table 3.2 Needs and Match with Services Received


Domain Need Matched

with Service

Individual 99% 99%

Delinquency 99% 99%

Family 97% 78%

Substance Use 91% 70%

Education 98% 60%

Peer 99% 51% TOTAL 169


8 In addition, all youth are required to attend school while detained in JRF, though this information is not documented in

PCMS nor shown in Table 3.2.



As Table 3.3 shows, there was some variability in service provision based on commitment type. STOP commits were significantly more likely to receive services addressing peer needs. STOP commits are housed in Rancho del Campo, which concentrates on behavior modification using ART and Character Counts (the two programs at JRF focusing on needs in the peer domain). Breaking Cycles youth were significantly more likely to have their educational needs and substance abuse issues addressed. These youth are housed in Rancho del Rayo, where the Phoenix House Therapeutic Community addresses substance abuse issues. With respect to educational programming, this finding is related to the longer length of stay for youth in the Breaking Cycles program (e.g., time required to participate in literacy program).

Table 3.3 Services Received by Commitment Type


Breaking Cycles

STOP Other

Individual 100% 98% 100%

Delinquency 100% 98% 100%

Family 71% 93% 93%

Substance Use* 84% 33% 64%

Education* 78% 5% 64%

Peer* 37% 93% 50% TOTAL 115 40 14

* Difference significant at .05 level.


While in custody, all youth attend school operated by the SDCOE. Based on data provided by the SDCOE, the program seems to be having a positive impact based on the limited data available. Specifically, the grade point average (GPA) rose from 2.19 at entry (SD = 1.27, range 0 to 4) to 3.28 at exit (SD = .71, range 0 to 4), a statistically significant difference. At exit, 64 percent of the youth were performing at grade level;9 however, the distribution of the GPA data provided, particularly upon entry, is not consistent with other evaluations of similar delinquent populations (Burke, 2007; Burke, Howard, & Evangelou, 2005). Specifically, at entry, the distribution is a typical bell shape, while a skewed distribution to the left (i.e., lower than average) is typically found among delinquent populations. Upon exit, it is skewed toward the right (i.e., higher than average); therefore, the validity of this measure is questioned and should not be given too much weight.

9 The “at grade level” measure is only available at program exit.



CHANGE IN NEEDS OVER TIME As previously described, the SDRRC is re-administered upon release from the facility to measure changes over time in the number of risk and protective factors. The exit SDRRC was estimated based on the date of completion within 90 days prior to or following exit and available through Assessments.com. The following two figures present data for the 82 wards who exited the facility and for whom both intake and exit SDRRCs were available.10 One way to examine assessment data is to look at the proportion of cases with changes in a positive direction. The difference between each individual’s protective, risk, and resiliency scores were computed. The proportion with a positive difference is shown in Figure 3.8. While the mean risk and protective scores for these youth did not change significantly, it is interesting to note that about one-third of the youth experienced positive change in assessment scores (i.e., had lower risk scores at exit (37%), higher protective scores (30%), and resiliency scores (32%)).

Figure 3.8 Positive Change in Assessment Scores from Intake to Exit


32%37%

30%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Protective Risk Resiliency

TOTAL = 82


10 Entry scores for matched cases were compared to individuals without a matching post assessment, and the average scores

were statistically similar, indicating that information based on matched cases can be generalized.



Figure 3.9 illustrates that, on average, protective, risk, and resiliency scores changed little for wards between the time of intake and release from JRF.11 Over time, the average number of protective factors remained relatively stable (4.45 at intake (SD = 3.10, range 0 to 14) and 4.06 upon release (SD = 4.38, range 0 to 20)), as did the average number of risk factors (21.70 at intake (SD = 4.34, range 0 to 30) and 22.16 at exit (SD = 5.28, range 0 to 29)) and resiliency scores (-17.24 at intake (SD = 6.16, range -27 to 0) and -18.10 at exit (SD = 8.28, range -29 to 15)). These results were consistent regardless of commitment type, ethnicity, or age. An examination of these scores over time based on the type of service received (i.e., services addressing needs in each of the SDRRC domains previously described) revealed no statistically significant impact of service type on risk, protective, or resiliency scores between entry and exit. Given the relatively short length of stay at JRF, the lack of significant improvement is not surprising, and it may be the case that change is more likely to occur once the youth is in the community and continuing to receive services. Further, it could be that longer periods under probation supervision results in a more completed picture of risks and needs revealed to the probation officer.

Figure 3.9 Assessment Scores at Intake and Exit


4.45

21.70

-17.24

4.06

22.16

-18.10

-30.00

-20.00

-10.00

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00


Intake Exit TOTAL = 82

SOURCE: San Diego Regional Resiliency Checkup (SDRRC) and SANDAG Changes over time also were examined for each protective factor within each of the six domains. All protective factors on the SDRRC are dynamic (with no static factors like those included on the risk scale), providing a greater opportunity for changes. There were statistically significant differences in four factors, one of which was in the positive direction. While none of the wards exhibited self

11 It should be noted that 8 of the 30 risk factors are static, as discussed in Chapter 2.



control (individual domain) upon entry assessment, seven percent did upon exit (Sign test, n=82, 6 positive differences). The fact that most factors did not significantly improve over time and three declined is reflective of the detention experience and the removal of the youth from the community where protective factors reside. Within the family domain, 16 percent participated in family activities prior to JRF entry, compared to 5 percent at exit (Sign test, n=82, 10 negative differences). Upon entering JRF, over half (57%) had at least one person to confide in (peer domain), but only about one-third were assessed with this characteristic upon exit (38%) (Sign test, n=82, 23 negative differences). Modeling by parents of healthy moderation (substance abuse domain) occurred for over half (57%) of the JRF youth upon entering the facility and 43 percent upon release (Sign test, n=82, 21 negative differences). These findings highlight the need to find ways to maintain family and community connections during the period while in custody.

DESISTANCE FOLLOWING RELEASE In order to determine the extent to which youth in the sample desisted from delin-quency (i.e., those with no new criminal activity), four measures were used: arrests, referrals, sustained petitions, and severity of offense by commitment type. Desistance is used rather than recidivism to illustrate potential positive outcomes following the JRF intervention. These measures were compiled at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months following release from the facility. For those individuals reaching the age of 18, the data also included adult criminal activity.12 The type of sustained petition and commitment are discussed, as well as factors predictive of recidivism. All 238 clients in the sample exited JRF and were released to the community (rather than another facility) by December 31, 2006, enabling research staff to collect follow-up data for the first 12 months following release,13 and 75 exited by December 2005, providing the opportunity to collect follow-up information for two years following release.14 As Table 3.4 shows, during the first twelve months following release, 40 percent of all youth in the sample were not re-arrested, 47 percent did not obtain a new referral, 60 percent were not found true for a sustained petition, and 69 percent were not re-committed to an institutional facility.

12 Fifty-nine youth reached the age of 18 within in the 2 years following release. Of these 59 youth, adult criminal activity

records were reviewed for 54, and 27 youth had remained arrest free one year following release. Five youth did not have their adult criminal activity reviewed because they still were being supervised within the juvenile system, resulting in complete documentation of behavior within PCMS.

13 Twelve months following release, 13 individuals had an offense while detained, 10 of which resulted in a sustained petition, and 9 had another commitment. This criminal activity is excluded from the numbers presented here.

14 Five individuals committed an offense while in custody 24 months following release that resulted in a referral, sustained petition, and 4 had another commitment. This criminal activity is excluded from the numbers presented here.

Camp has really given me a positive outlook at life. Sadly, I’m afraid to leave. I don’t know what I’m going back to, but I feel that I’m confident enough to try. Certain staff here really treated me as a friend in need of help. This program is the real second chance.

–Quote from JRF detainee



When the period is expanded to the 75 youth released for at least 24 months, 23 percent were arrest free; 28 percent did not have a new referral to Probation, 40 percent were not found true for a sustained petition, and 51 percent did not receive a new institutional commitment. The table also includes measures for 6 and 18 months following release, which follow a similar pattern. These outcomes were similar by commitment type.

Table 3.4 Justice System Contact Post Release


6 months 12 months 18 months 24 months

No New Arrest 63% 40% 27% 23%

No New Referrals 68% 47% 33% 28%

No New Sustained Petitions 76% 60% 48% 40%

No New Commitments 82% 69% 60% 51%

TOTAL 238 238 219 75


Of the 95 youth who did recidivate and had a sustained petition for a new offense within 12 months after release, 62 percent had a true finding for a felony-level charge and 40 percent for a misdemeanor-level charge. In terms of offense type, the highest charge was a property crime for 55 percent, a violent crime for 24 percent, and another type of offense for 20 percent. The proportions were similar for youth out of custody for two years (not shown). Of those with true findings within the 12 months following release, an average of 159.94 days (SD = 95.99, range 0 to 364) were spent in custody. Ninety-two percent (92%) were placed in Kearny Mesa or East Mesa Juvenile Detention Facility, 48 percent at JRF, 32 percent at Camp Barrett, 9 percent in adult jail, 5 percent in a residential treatment facility (RTF), 1 at the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation - Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), 15 and 1 percent in a group home (not shown). With respect to detention, four in five youth (80%) were detained during the one-year period (not shown), even though only 40 percent had a sustained petition. This finding is a reflection of the Breaking Cycles program in which probation officers use a system of graduated sanctions, including placement in custody without court intervention, in response to violation of court orders or other delinquent behavior. That is, about three out of five youth (63%) of the JRF sample violated the terms of probation 12 months following release. When the period is expanded to 24 months post release, two-thirds violated the terms of probation.

15 Formerly known as the California Youth Authority (CYA).



In addition to measuring youth who remain crime free throughout time, another assessment of changes in delinquency is variation in the severity of crimes committed.16 Examination of reduced severity in criminal behavior reveals changes masked by the previous measure of complete desistance. Table 3.5 shows the proportion with reduced severity at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months following release based on arrests, referrals, and sustained petitions. Individuals with no new arrests are included in the “reduced severity” category. Regardless of outcomes measure (arrest, referral, or sustained petition), almost all of those released for at least six months experienced a reduction in severity of offending behavior relative to the period prior to entering into JRF. Similarly, four-fifths had reduced severity after one year, three-quarters after 18 months, and two-thirds after two years.17

Table 3.5 Proportion of Justice Outcomes with Reduced Severity



Arrests 91% 82% 74% 67%

Referrals 89% 80% 72% 64%

Sustained Petitions 90% 80% 73% 68%

TOTAL 238 238 219 75


Probation Compliance In addition to probation violations previously discussed, compliance with the terms of probation was measured through payment of restitution and fines, as well as successful completion of probation supervision. The conditions of probation are designed to monitor compliance with treatment (e.g., drug testing), as well as ensure public safety (e.g., detection of criminal activity). In conjunction with graduated sanctions for lack of cooperation and continued delinquency, probation violations are part of the rehabilitative process. As previously mentioned, probation violations were common (63% of those with 12-month, follow-up data). Examination of violation rates by commitment type revealed that Breaking Cycles youth were significantly more likely to have a probation violation during the 12 months following release (69% of 158 Breaking Cycles commitments) compared to STOP and individuals receiving other types of commitments (20% of 60

16 The California Department of Justice Criminal Justice Statistics Center periodically publishes offense and violation codes

and assigns a hierarchy to reflect the seriousness of one offense relative to all others. Based on the hierarchy, the highest charge was recorded for every follow-up period. The hierarchy for the highest charge for each follow-up period was compared to the hierarchy for the highest charge during the time prior to incarceration and selection for this study (including the instant offense).

17 When the recidivism measures are compared for each 6-month, follow-up period (six months following release, 7 to 12 months, 13 to 18 months, and 19 to 24 months), the proportions with new criminal activity are statistically similar (i.e., not significantly different at the .05 level). That is, the pattern of delinquency within each six-month period does not vary over time;therefore, the remaining discussion on desistance and recidivism focuses on the one year following release.



STOP commitments and 11% of 20 other cases) (not shown). These findings persist when the data are expanded to cases released from the facility at 24 months.

Table 3.6 Probation Compliance


Fines: Paid in full 53% Partial payment 2% Delinquent 45% Total ordered 60

Restitution: Paid in full 44% Partial payment 22% Delinquent 33% Total ordered 27

Probation Termination: Successful

60%

Unsuccessful 33% Adult Jail 1% Out of San Diego County 5% Total terminated 93

NOTE: Percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding.


Payment of restitution and fines is another measure of probation compliance. In addition to ordering detention and proba-tion supervision, the San Diego Superior Court Juvenile Division sometimes requires the offender or his parents to pay restitution and/or fines. In cases where there was a victim, the court orders the offender to compensate the victim for any injury, damage, or loss (i.e., restitution). Fines differ from restitution in that they are paid to the government as a consequence of criminal activity. Both types of payments are

Dominic was placed under probation supervision in August 2005 due to burglary, petty theft, loitering, and possession of marijuana and tobacco. After violating several probation conditions, he was committed to the JRF in 2007. He took advantage of the services offered at JRF, including the Phoenix House Therapeutic Community program, school attendance, and individual counseling. During his stay at JRF, he had the opportunity tour the Job Corp program. Upon release from JRF, he decided to focus on improving his health by working out regularly at the YMCA and eventually became a volunteer there. When probation supervision was terminated in September 2007, he remembered his tour of Job Corp and enrolled. Dominic is scheduled to graduate from Job Corp in November 2008 and will have the skills needed to find employment in masonry work. He realized what it takes to succeed and is looking forward to his future. His advice to those in the JRF program, “Learn from your mistakes and don’t let your past hold you back. Look ahead to what you want to achieve.”

– Description by JRF staff




made to the San Diego County’s Office of Revenue and Recovery. Of the 60 youth ordered to pay a fine and released from JRF for at least two years, 53 percent had paid their fines in full (this included payments that have been satisfied or adjusted according to the Court or Probation Department), 2 percent made partial payment, and 45 percent had not made any payments toward their fines (Table 3.6). There were 27 individuals ordered to pay restitution and released at least two years ago. Almost half (44%) had paid restitution in full, 22 percent made partial payments, and one-third (33%) paid none of the restitution ordered. By December 31, 2007, of the 238 youth in the sample, probation was terminated for 39 percent (or 93 wards), about three in five youth were deemed “successful” (60%), more than one-third “unsuccessful” (33%), five youths had relocated outside of San Diego County, and one youth was placed in adult jail for new crimes (not shown). Though Breaking Cycles cases already receive intensive monitoring, this probation compliance information suggests the need for expanded aftercare in order to reduced probation violations, increase full payment of fines and restitution, and raise the proportion of successful probation terminations. Peers and Recidivism McCord and Conway (2005) found that recidivism is significantly more likely when crimes are committed with peers, suggesting that criminogenic attitudes and beliefs are frequently learned from delinquent friends and highlighting the need for juvenile justice programs that promote pro-social relationships and decrease the opportunity for negative influence by delinquent peers. Of the 238 youth, 36 percent were re-arrested for a crime committed with a peer within 12 months post release (not shown). In addition, youth who committed an offense with a co-conspirator prior to entering JRF was significantly more likely to have a true finding on a sustained petition (43% of 191 youth) and be re-committed (34% of 191 youth) one year post release. An arrest with peers in the past was not related to arrests with peers following release. The impact of this factor on recidivism will be explored further in the next section.

PREDICTING RECIDIVISM FOLLOWING RELEASE To increase our understanding of the mechanisms predictive of recidivism for this population, a regression analysis was conducted using two measures of recidivism: arrests and true findings. As has been previously discussed, prior to placement at JRF, these youth already had a history of delinquency. That is, they are not first-time offenders. It is important to keep this fact in mind when interpreting the results of the regression analysis. This discussion focuses on the 12-month, follow-up period with re-arrest and true findings as the recidivism measures, unless otherwise noted. The analysis followed the four-step process previously discussed in Chapter 2 to determine which factors varied sufficiently to influence outcomes (i.e., the dependent variable). The analysis based on re-arrest found that none of the predictor variables were related to recidivism while controlling for the other variables in the model. The four-step process was repeated using true finding as the outcome measure.



After the removal of highly correlated variables, 15 variables were included in the model using true findings as the dependent variable. Eleven predictor variables were included because they were related to recidivism in the zero-order regression: number of family visits between start and release date, age at release, total arrests with peers in the pre-period, total referrals in the pre-period, total true findings in the pre-period, highest type of true finding in the pre-period (i.e., violent, property, drug-related, and other charges), number of commitments in the pre-period, number of commitments to JFR in the pre-period, whether instant offense was a probation violation, whether a service addressed a substance abuse need, and whether they were involved in an assault/fighting incident during commitment. Four other variables were included: ethnicity, length of stay, GPA at exit, and number of days on the street in the one year following release to account for other characteristics that might impact the relationship between the predictor variables and recidivism. The analysis found that three of the predictor variables did impact recidivism while controlling for the other variables in the true findings model (Table 3.7). If an individual had a probation violation as the instant offense, he was less likely to have a true finding in the 12 months following release from JRF (β = .318). In addition, the more true findings an individual had in the pre-period increased his likelihood to have a true finding within the 12 months after release (β = 1.92). Finally, individuals who received substance abuse services while in custody also were more likely to have a true finding (β = 3.25); however, it should be noted that this last finding could be related to the fact that youth receiving these services also were significantly more likely to have greater risk scores and lower protective/resiliency scores and greater justice system involvement, as measured by prior commitment days ordered. In addition, for the purpose of these analyses receipt, of these services were categorized as yes/no and do not reflect level of engagement or amount of services received. Table 3.7 shows the bivariate relationship between these variables and the percentage with a true finding.



Table 3.7 True Findings 12 Months Following Release by Predictor Variables


Predicting Factor True Finding

Received Service Addressing Substance Abuse Need

Yes 46%

No 27%

Instant Offense Was Probation Violation

Yes 31%

No 47%

Number of True Findings in Pre-Period

1 32% 2 41% 3+ 55%


IMPACT OF TIME ON RECIDIVISM FOLLOWING RELEASE Additional analyses examining the amount of time between release and a youth being re-arrested (regardless of the outcome) revealed that for the 142 youth who were re-arrested in the first 12 months following release, the average amount of time between the two dates was five months or 152.94 days (SD = 102.12, range 5 to 363). Figure 3.10 graphically shows the percent of clients who remained arrest free during the 365 days by commitment type. For all youth at JRF, the proportion of arrest-free cases ranged from 100 percent at 0 days (day of release) to 40 percent 12 months later with little variance by commitment type (37% for Breaking Cycles, 48% for STOP, and 45% for other types of commitments). The steepest decline occurred during the second month (between 30 and 60 days), suggesting a need for a link to services in the community, particularly for the first two months following release. The average number of days between release and arrest was similar for Breaking Cycles youth (152.29, SD = 99.83, range 13 to 363),18 STOP cases (149.26, SD = 115.81, range 5 to 363) and individuals in JRF due to other commitments (i.e., Drug Court and direct commits) (169.18, SD = 88.32, range 30 to 278) (not shown). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis also was used to examine differences in time to re-arrest by commitment type. Unlike the analysis above that only considers those who were re-arrested, Kaplan-Meier survival analysis keeps both juveniles who were re-arrested and those who were not 18 Since Breaking Cycles cases comprise the majority of the overall JRF sample (100 of 142 cases, or 70%), the similarity

between this finding and the overall measure is not surprising.



re-arrested in the analysis. The cumulative survival plot (Figure 3.10) shows the proportion who have survived (not been re-arrested) at observed times (days since release). The Kaplan-Meier analysis shows that there were no statistically significant differences in the time to re-arrest for the three commitment types: Breaking Cycles, STOP, and other.

Figure 3.10 Percent with no New Arrests Twelve Months Following Release


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0 60 120 180 240 300 360

Days Since Release

All JRF Breaking Cycles STOP Other

TOTAL = 238


SUMMARY To answer research questions posed as part of Project I (Program Analysis) and Project II (Recidivism), a random sample of 238 JRF commitments were selected from those who entered this juvenile probation facility between August 2005 and May 2006. Reflecting the demographic characteristics of the population, these individuals had around two prior sustained petitions before their current true finding, most often at the felony level, and about three-quarters had at least one prior commitment. The length of stay varied with commitment type. The needs assessment based on the SDRRC revealed a group of wards with a high number of risk factors and low number of protective factors, resulting in low resiliency upon entry to JRF. At exit, there was little change in these measures due to the short length of stay in the facility and little time to impact the assessed factors. During their stay at JRF, almost all wards with individual and delinquency issues participated in at least one program designed to address their needs. In addition



to mandatory school attendance by all youth, almost two-thirds of the youth received at least one literacy program to assist with educational issues. With respect to desistance from crime one year following release from custody, 40 percent remained arrest free and 60 percent had no new sustained petitions. Of those who recidivated, 82 percent were arrested for an offense that was less severe than the offenses committed prior to entering into JRF. In addition, the average time to re-arrest was five months, displaying a concerted effort of not immediately recidivating following release into the community. The first two months in the community seem to be critical for provision of community services in an effort to increase successful reentry. Statistical analysis designed to determine the factors related to success for this population revealed that prior criminal history and receiving a service addressing a substance abuse problem (which was related to lower resiliency and greater prior justice system contact) were the only areas significantly related to recidivism (based on true findings) and the relationship. Service provision did not improve outcomes, even when matched to the needs of the delinquents. This finding could be due to the lack of variability in service provision, reflect program implementation inconsistent with evidence-based practices for incarcerated juvenile delinquents, and/or indicate the need for services following release in order to continue the work begun in the facility.

CHAPTER 4 PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND RECIDIVISM:

CAMP BARRETT


MAJOR FINDINGS

Camp Barrett youth had lengthier histories of delinquency, with an average of seven previous arrests and almost three sustained petitions. Two-thirds (67%) entered the facility for a new offense.

Sixty-one percent (61%) had previously been detained at JRF and nine percent had a previous commitment to Camp Barrett.

Camp Barrett youth had low-resiliency profiles, with an average of 22 risk and 4 protective factors.

The average commitment time served was over four months, but with considerable range (16 days to over 16 months).

Within one year of their release from Camp Barrett, 38 percent remained arrest free, a similar rate to the JRF sample. The average length of time until an arrest for a new offense in the first year post release was about five months. About half had no new sustained petitions (52%).

CHAPTER 4 PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND RECIDIVISM: CAMP BARRETT

INTRODUCTION For the current chapter, information regarding the Camp Barrett sample is presented to address the research questions previously described as part of Project I (Program Analysis) and Project II (Recidi-vism). This analysis includes descriptive information about the current sample of 160 youth randomly selected from all Camp Barrett admissions between August 2005 and May 2006. Demographic character-istics and criminal history of this sample are compared to a historical sample of 59 youth entering Camp Barrett during calendar year 2000 compiled during an internal study by the San Diego County Probation Department,1 as well as the population of youth admitted to Camp Barrett from which the sample was drawn. Additional information also is presented regarding the risk and protective factors, services received, recidivism, and factors predictive of success.

SAMPLE DESCRIPTION Between August 2005 and May 2006, 261 youth entered the program at Camp Barrett, 160 of whom were randomly selected, stratified across months, to be part of this study (61% of the population). As Figure 4.1 shows, the Camp Barrett current sample mirrored the characteristics of the general Camp Barrett population, with slightly over half described as Hispanic, around one in four described as Black, and the remaining one-fifth described as White or another ethnicity. Figure 4.1 also shows that the current sample was very similar to the historical sample of cases from 2000 with respect to ethnicity. The average age of the current sample was similar to the population and historical sample (current sample mean = 17.09, SD = .68, range 16 to 18; population mean = 17.10, SD = .70, range 14 to 18; historical sample mean = 17.17, SD = .53, range 16 to 18) (not shown).

1 Additional information regarding this historical study is provided in Chapter 2 of this report.



Figure 4.1 Camp Barrett Samples and Population Ethnicity

12%

24%

56%

9%15%

26%

52%

7%

15%19%

59%

7%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

White Black Hispanic Other

Current Sample (n = 160) Population (n = 261) Historical Sample (n = 59)


SOURCE: Research Unit, San Diego County Probation Department and SANDAG

Criminal History As described previously, SANDAG researchers collected arrest, referral, and sustained petition information for each youth in the current Camp Barrett sample. These data were collected for the period before commitment to the facility in order to understand the differences in criminal history for the youth and how this might relate to later recidivism. It should be noted that since all of the youth were at Camp Barrett, each youth has a history of at least one arrest, referral, and petition; however, some of these youth did not initially receive a commitment to Camp Barrett as a result of a sustained petition, but were ordered to serve commitment time due to a probation violation. Of the 160 youth in the current sample, 67 percent (or 107 cases) were serving time at Camp Barrett due to a new referral that resulted in a sustained petition, with the remaining 33 percent in custody due to a probation violation. More than three-quarters (77%) of these youth had committed a felony-level offense, and two in five youth (43%) had violent charges (not shown). As Figure 4.2 shows, the youth committed to Camp Barrett and sampled for the current study had an average of 7.06 arrests (SD = 3.84, range 1 to 21), 5.18 referrals (SD = 2.93, range 1 to 18), and 2.88 sustained petitions (SD = 1.65, range 1 to 9), all of which included the instant offense. The average number of arrests involving a co-offender was 2.68 (SD = 1.97, range 0 to11). In addition, almost all (96%) had at least one prior institutional commitment and had an average of 443.60 commitment days ordered (SD = 256.73, range 0 to 1,237) prior to entering into the sample (not shown). Data for the historical sample included the number of prior sustained petitions, but not



arrests or referrals. This historical sample had an average of 4.02 true findings2 prior to Camp Barrett entry (SD = 2.25, range 1 to 12).

Figure 4.2 Prior Arrests, Referrals, and Sustained Peitions Camp Barrett Current and Historical Samples

7.06

5.18

2.88

n/a n/a

4.02

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

Arrests Referrals Sustained Petitions

Current Sample (n = 160) Historical Sample (n = 59)


Additional analyses revealed that for the Camp Barrett sample, a ward’s age was a significant predictor of the number of prior arrests and referrals, but not sustained petitions nor commitments. That is, compared to their older counterparts, younger juveniles (16 rather than 17 or 18 years of age) committed to Camp Barrett had a greater number of prior arrests (8.67 for 16-year-olds (SD = 5.03, range 1 to 21) versus 6.79 for 17-year-olds (SD = 3.14, range 1 to 16) or 6.49 for 18-year-olds (SD = 3.92, range 1 to 16)) and referrals (6.37 for 16-year-olds (SD = 3.45, range 1 to 18) versus 5.01 for 17 year olds (SD = 2.62, range 1 to 13) and 4.69 for 18-year-olds (SD = 2.97, range 1 to 12)) (not shown). In terms of the highest charge on a prior sustained petition, almost all (90%) of the current Camp Barrett and historical samples (93%) had a true finding for a felony-level offense (again, including the instant offense) (not shown). As Table 4.1 shows, around four in five of the youth in the current sample had a highest sustained petition for a violent (45%) or property offense (39%). Unfortunately, this information was not available for the historical sample. Age was not found to be predictive of level of offense (felony/misdemeanor) or type of charge (violent, property, drug-related, or other) based on highest sustained petition.

2 Data for the historical sample were based on felony and misdemeanors only, while the current sample

includes all charges (i.e., status offenses, infractions).



Table 4.1 Violation Type for Highest Sustained Petition

Camp Barrett Current Sample

Violent 45%

Property 39%

Drug 8%

Other 8% TOTAL 160


As a result of this prior criminal history, many of the youth in the current sample had prior commitments to the Juvenile Ranch Facility (JRF) (61%). The proportion with prior experience at Camp Barrett was far less (9%). This information was not available for the historical sample (not shown). Needs Assessment As with all other wards under the jurisdiction of the Probation Department, information regarding risk and protective factors was collected for those committed to Camp Barrett using the San Diego Regional Resiliency Checkup (SDRRC). As previously noted, this tool assesses youth on 30 risk and 30 protective factors, categorized into six domains. Camp Barrett staff use the SDRRC completed upon arrest as the “intake” assessment. In order to ensure that as many cases as possible are included in the analysis, the SDRRC completed within the three months prior to Camp Barrett entry was used as the “intake” assessment. If multiple assessments fell within this window, the one closest to the entry date was used. For the 160 youth in the Camp Barrett sample, SANDAG received 97 intake SDRRCs. Risk and Resiliency Profile at Intake Figure 4.3 depicts the mean total risk, protective, and resiliency scores of 60 assessed factors for wards entering Camp Barrett. Wards were rated as having an average of 21.77 risk factors out of 30 (SD = 4.53, range 11 to 30) and 3.98 protective factors of 30 possible at intake (SD = 4.05, range 0 to 16), with a resiliency score of -17.79 (i.e., almost 18 more risk than protective factors) (SD = 7.31, range -30 to 2). These measures were similar to those reported for the JRF sample, which is somewhat surprising due to the advanced level of criminal involvement for wards placed at Camp Barrett.3 This finding suggests that an updated assessment of needs may be needed upon entry into the facility, rather than basing service provision on the assessment conducted at arrest. 3 Both “yes” and “somewhat” categories are considered as “at-risk” in this analysis, which could explain the comparability;

however, analysis removing somewhat from the “at-risk” ratings revealed changes in average risk scores that were similar for Camp Barrett and JRF. That is, the average risk score for Camp Barrett was 8.82 (SD = 4.40, range 1 to 25) computed without somewhat, while the same measure for JRF was 8.98 (SD = 3.92, range 0 to 21). Therefore, the lack of difference between the two groups cannot be attributed to the proportion with “somewhat” versus “yes” ratings.



Figure 4.3 Assessment Scores at Intake Camp Barrett Current Sample

3.98

21.77

-17.79-20.00

-10.00

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

Total Protective Total Risk Total Resiliency

TOTAL = 97


The detailed distribution of risk factors for each of the six domains is shown in Figure 4.4. Almost all wards had at least one risk factor in every domain, with 100 percent assessed as having at least one risk factor related to the individual and delinquency domains. As noted in previous chapters, the individual domain includes having no pro-social interests, being supportive of delinquency, having anger management issues, sensation seeking, and being manipulative and/or deceitful. To be rated as at risk on the delinquency domain, these youth could have prior arrests, live in neighborhoods with significant crime, commit offenses while under the influence, be assaultive, and/or have a delinquent orientation.



Figure 4.4 Risk Factors by Domain at Intake


92%95%98%99%100%100%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Individual Delinquency Peer Family Education SubstanceUse

TOTAL = 97


Similar to the JRF sample, there is more variability with respect to protective factors (with 8% to 59% rated as having a protective factor in each domain), compared to risk factors for the Camp Barrett youth (Figure 4.5). About half of wards had one or more protective factors in the family (59%), substance use (59%), and peer (45%) domains; around one-third (36%) had at least one protective factor in the education domain; and about one-quarter (28%) were assessed as having delinquency-related protective factors. Finally, only eight percent had at least one individual protective factor. Examination of the specific factors within each domain reveal similar findings as presented for JRF, with the following statistically significant differences.

For the peer domain, the current Camp Barrett sample (41%) was less likely to have someone in which to confide than the JRF group (59%).

Factors in the educational domain revealed that Camp Barrett youth were less likely to be in a caring/supportive school climate prior to entry (25%) into the facility than JRF youth (47%).

In the delinquency domain, Camp Barrett youth were less likely to participate in a faith community than JRF youth (4% and 15%, respectively) or be involved in a community organization (4% for Camp Barrett and 16% for JRF).

With respect to factors in the individual domain, those detained at Camp Barrett were more likely to have self efficacy in pro-social roles (5% compared to none at JRF).

.



Figure 4.5 Protective Factors by Domain at Intake


8%

28%

36%

45%

59%59%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Family SubstanceUse

Peer Education Delinquency Individual

TOTAL = 97


These detailed protective factors are discussed further in Chapter 6 as related to staff opinions regarding factors critical for success.

INFORMATION REGARDING PLACEMENT While the youth who were selected as part of the current sample entered Camp Barrett between August 2005 and May 2006, they actually could have been committed at an earlier point in time, similar to those youth committed to JRF. As such, the average wait time or mean number of days between commitment to Camp Barrett and entering the facility was 57.26 (SD = 13.08, range 3 to 110 days).4 Delays in transferring a youth to the facility were associated at least, in part, with limited bed space. On February 2, 2006, an additional dorm was opened at Camp Barrett. This change effectively reduced wait times, with youth committed prior to this date waiting an average of 61.39 days prior to admission (SD = 11.08, range 3 to 110 days), compared to 43.54 days for those committed after the opening of the new dorm (SD = 9.36, range 31 to 77 days).5 In October 2006, the number of funded beds increased further to alleviate overcrowding at both the Kearny Mesa and East Mesa Juvenile Detention Facilities. All the cases in the study sample were admitted prior to this date.

4 This information was not available for the historical sample of cases. 5 This difference was significant at the .05 level.



Thomas is working as a part-time landscaper and enrolled in an automotive technology program.

Samuel also is a part-time landscaper, receiv-ing perfect reviews regarding his work, while maintaining an educational program as well.

After completing the requirements for his high school diploma and food handler’s card while at Camp Barrett, Neil is working in a major grocery store chain in the meat department.

–Description by work readiness staff

NOTE: The names have been changed to protect the wards’ privacy.

As of April 2007, all 160 clients in the current sample had exited their placement at Camp Barrett. The mean number of days served at the facility for the current sample was 136.82 (SD = 73.98, range 16 to 472), and it was 173.75 days (SD = 70.33, range 80 to 346) for the historical sample (not shown). This difference may be a result of data collection methods. Length of stay for the current study used actual admission and release dates as recorded in the Probation Case Management System (PCMS). The conversion from the Regional Juvenile Information System (REJIS) to PCMS could have impacted the data collection efforts during the historical study.

SERVICES RECEIVED As discussed in Chapter 1, Camp Barrett provides a variety of programs designed to prepare youth for life upon release from the facility. To examine the match between the programs received and the needs of wards, information from the SDRRC for the 97 cases with intake assessments was compared to actual services received as documented in PCMS. Table 4.2 and Figure 4.4 show the proportion of youth at risk in the six domains based on the intake assessment. For those at risk in each domain, the table also lists the percentage participating at least once in the program designed to address the specific need.6 The services identified as meeting each need were previously presented in Table 2.1. In order to examine the match between services received and needs, individual level data was required; therefore, the following analysis was restricted to the automated data available through PCMS. Details regarding the proportion of wards in the sample receiving each type of service as documented in PCMS are included in Appendix Table A3.

6 The intensity of service participation (e.g., number of classes attended) and fidelity of the services provided (i.e., was

program implemented as designed) are not known. In addition, there is no assurance that the issues identified in the domain correspond to the issues focused upon within the programs received.



Hector, an 18-year-old who has been in and out of juvenile deten-tion facilities since he was 12, is a documented gang member. While at Camp Barrett, he received his GED and certificates in culinary arts, ServSafe, fire sciences, and work readiness. Upon release from the facility, he participated in the paid career technical program in the construction trade. Hector completed this program within four months and currently works for a roofing company and is no longer under Probation supervision. His long-term goals include buying a car and applying for an electrical apprenticeship program in the fall.



As Table 4.2 shows, all or almost all needed services in each domain.

Table 4.2 Needs and Match with Services Received


Domain Need Matched

with Service

Family 98% 80%

Individual 100% 67%

Delinquency 100% 59%

Peer 99% 57%

Education7 95% 37%

Substance Use 92% 30% TOTAL 97


The area of family issues was addressed most often, with 80 percent of youth receiving services in this domain. Of the array of services available to address this need and docu-mented in PCMS (as delineated in Table 2.1), one directly included family members: visitation. The opportunity for family visits can be provided by Camp Barrett staff, but the frequency of these visits is beyond their control.

Individual needs were addressed through seven different programs (i.e., AA/NA, Aggression Replacement Training (ART), Character Counts, Community Service, Life Skills, Substance Abuse Groups, and Thinking for a Change). Two-thirds (67%) of those in need participated in at least one of these programs.

Six services were available at Camp Barrett and tracked in PCMS that address delinquency issues (i.e., AA/NA, ART, Character Counts, Teen Relationship Violence (TRV), Thinking for a Change, and Substance Abuse Groups). Over half (59%) of those needing services in the area of delinquency attended at least one of these programs.

7 Based on participation in programs beyond school attendance.



Five programs address peer issues (i.e., ART, Character Counts, Substance Abuse Groups, TRV, and Thinking for a Change), and 57 percent of those needing programming in this area participated in one or more of these activities.

In the area of education, Camp Barrett has five programs in addition to mandatory school attendance (for all wards without high school diplomas or the equivalent). Most of these programs focus on work readiness: building and grounds maintenance, career guidance, and the Fire Academy Regional Occupational Program.8 In addition, a literacy program based on the Lindamood-Bell model was available, as well as opportunities to give back to society through community service. Over one-third (37%) of the wards in need participated in at least one of these services, representing the services offered above and beyond school attendance.

The difficulties in maintaining programs related to substance use at Camp Barrett previously discussed in Chapter 1 are reflected in the proportion of youth needing and receiving substance abuse treatment. Less than one-third (30%) of those in need attended a program related to substance abuse, the smallest proportion of the areas examined.

All youth at Camp Barrett attend school each day unless they already have graduated from high school or have a general educational development (GED), in which case they participate in work programs. Of those attending school, two-thirds (67%) were performing below grade level upon release. Based on grade point average (GPA), it seems that the in-custody school program made a positive impact on youth academically.9 The average GPA for these wards rose from 3.12 (SD = .73, range 0 to 4) to 3.47 (SD = .51, range 0 to 4), a statistically significant change.10 In addition, 11 percent (17 cases) of the sample received their GED during their current commitment at the facility.

CHANGE IN NEEDS OVER TIME Changes over time in risk and protective factors were measured through the SDRRC as previously described for the JRF sample.11 Figures 4.6 and Figure 4.7 present data for the 50 Camp Barrett wards who exited their commitment and for whom both the SDRRC at intake and exit were completed. Figure 4.6 shows the proportion of wards with positive changes in risk, protective, and resiliency scores. About half of the wards had fewer risk factors (53%) and a higher resiliency score (48%) upon release from Camp Barrett relative to the time they were admitted to the facility. In addition, 30 percent had a greater number of protective factors at exit compared to intake. 8 Wards attaining their GED while in custody were more likely to participate in the building and grounds maintenance

program and the Fire Science Academy. 9 GPA at both entry and exit was available for 152 cases. 10 However, the GPA, particularly upon entry, is not consistent with other evaluations of similar delinquent populations. In

fact, the distribution is skewed to the right (i.e., toward higher average GPA) for both the entry and exit measures when the opposite is found among other delinquent populations; therefore, the validity of this measure is questioned.

11 Entry scores for matched cases were compared to individuals without a matching post assessment, and the average scores were statistically similar, indicating that information based on matched cases can be generalized.



Figure 4.6 Positive Change in Assessment Scores from Intake to Exit


48%53%

30%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


TOTAL = 40


As shown in Figure 4.7, the overall average protective and resiliency scores for wards released from Camp Barrett showed positive change between intake and exit. However, these changes were not statistically significant and there were no differences by the youth’s age, ethnicity, or services received (using the previously discussed categories). Additionally, there were no significant changes in any of the six domains. Changes over time were also examined for each of the six domains assessed through the SDRRC, none of which showed significant improvement over time.

Figure 4.7 Assessment Scores at Intake and Exit


3.92

21.70

-17.78

5.14

20.28

-15.14

-30.00

-20.00

-10.00

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00


Intake Exit TOTAL = 50




As previously discussed in the analysis of assessment data for JRF in Chapter 3, since protective factors are considered critical in stopping the cycle of delinquency, changes over time were analyzed for each protective factor within the six domains. Though the majority did not change significantly over time, the two that did change were in the delinquency domain and did so in a positive direction. Specifically, pro-social adult relations significantly improved from 12 percent during the entry assessment to 30 percent at exit (Sign test, n=50, 9 positive differences), as did participation in extensive structured activities (12%) compared to at intake (Sign test, n=50, 6 positive differences).

DESISTANCE FOLLOWING RELEASE Similar to the analysis of desistance for JRF, the impact of detention at Camp Barrett on subsequent offending was examined with respect to arrests, referrals, sustained petitions, and severity of offense at six-month intervals up to 12 months following release from the facility. For those reaching their 18th birthday, adult criminal activity is included.12 For those with sustained petitions, the type of offense and commitment are presented. The factors predictive of success also are analyzed. Of the current sample, almost all had exited Camp Barrett by June 30, 2007, enabling research staff to document any criminal behavior for the first six-month period following release for 159 clients.13 A total of 152 had exited by December 31, 2006, enabling research staff to collect recidivism data for one year following release.14 The following discussion focuses on 12 month outcomes because the total number of cases is large enough for meaningful analysis. Outcomes for each six month interval following release are shown in the tables for reference. As Table 4.3 shows, one-third (38%) of the youth were arrest free one year following release, two in five (41%) with no new referrals to Probation for delinquency, and over half (52%) with no new sustained petitions. For the historical sample, 69 percent had no sustained petitions within one year of release (not shown).

12 All youth in the Camp Barrett sample had reached the age of 18 two years following release from the facility. Of the 159

youth, 142 had their adult criminal activity reviewed. The remaining 17 youth were still under supervision in the juvenile justice system with delinquent behavior documented in PCMS.

13 Six individuals were detained during the six months following release from Camp Barrett and committed offenses while in custody. Five of these delinquent acts resulted in a true finding, and two received additional commitments prior to release. This criminal behavior is not included in the data presented in this section.

14 Within one year following release, two additional youth were detained and arrested. In both of these cases, the offenses resulted in a sustained petition and a new commitment. This behavior is not included in the one-year recidivism measures.



Table 4.3 Justice System Contact Post Release



Arrest Free 55% 38% 26% 14%

No New Referrals 62% 41% 30% 18%

No New Sustained Petitions 70% 52% 42% 23%

No New Commitments 80% 70% 60% 36% TOTAL 159 152 107 22


With respect to new commitments ordered by the Juvenile Court in response to continued delinquency, 70 percent of the Camp Barrett youth were not re-committed within 12 months of release. Actual placement in custody can occur without a commitment because it includes detention prior to court hearings for new arrests, as well as custody placement used by Probation as a graduated sanction in response to probation violations. The proportion with no custody time served was 33 percent (not shown). With respect to changes in severity of offenses committed over time, at least half of the wards in the current Camp Barrett sample demonstrated a decline in the seriousness of the delinquent behavior they engaged in as measured by arrest, referrals, and sustain petitions for all four follow-up periods (Table 4.4).

Table 4.4 Proportion of Justice Outcomes with Reduced Severity



Arrests 84% 76% 70% 59%

Referrals 88% 80% 73% 59%

Sustained Petitions 90% 82% 77% 73%

TOTAL 159 152 107 22




Jose is an 18-year-old with repeated prior custody time for gang violence. As a documented gang member, he was assigned to the Gang Suppression Unit. When he entered the work- readiness program at Camp Barrett, he was an expectant father. During the class, he discussed expectations of being a father and his long-term goals. Prior to release from Camp Barrett, staff worked with him to develop a transition plan that included continuation of education and job placement opportunities. Once in the community, he enrolled in a GED-preparation class and the Youth Build program, a paid internship program offering certification in construction trades. He has accepted a job offer at Petco Park in the warehouse department. Due to his success, probation supervision was stopped for the first time since he was 14 years old.



Of the 73 youth in the current sample with sustained petitions for a new offense within one year following release, 63 percent had a true finding for a felony-level charge, 36 percent for a misdemeanor-level charge, and 1 percent for a municipal code violation/infraction. For the historical sample, eleven cases (61%) had a felony true finding, and seven (39%) had a true finding related to a misdemeanor charge. In terms of offense type, about one-third of the current sample had a highest charge for a property crime (33%) or for violence (36%), 18 percent for a drug-related crime, 8 percent for another type of misdemeanor, 4 percent another felony, and 1 percent for an infraction (not shown). This level of detail was not available for the historical sample. This level of continued delinquency resulted in additional incarceration time ordered by the Juvenile Court for 67 percent of those with a sustained petition, with an average of 154 additional commitment days ordered by the court (SD = 316.19, range 0 to 1,460) (not shown). Actual time in custody during the year following release was less. Over half (59%) spent time in the Kearny Mesa/East Mesa Juvenile Detention Facilities or went to adult jail (59%), 15 percent were returned to Camp Barrett, 5 percent were sent to DJJ,15 4 percent went to prison, 4 percent to a residential treatment facility, and 1 percent spent time in a group home (not shown). Probation Compliance As previously discussed in Chapter 3, another measure of success involves successful completion of probation supervision based on probation violations and release from probation supervision. Overall, over three-fourths (77%) of these youth were in the community violation free for at least one year following detention at Camp Barrett.16 As shown in Table 4.5, of the 20 youth who were ordered to pay fines and released for 2 years, 85 percent had paid their fines in full (as mentioned in Chapter 3. This includes payments that were adjusted or satisfied by the Probation Department or San Diego County Superior Court), 5 percent had made some payment, and 10 percent had not made any payments toward their fines. With

15 Formerly known as the California Youth Authority (CYA). 16 Consequences of these probation violations are unknown.



respect to restitution, 14 wards were ordered to pay restitution and were released for at least 24 months. Seventy-nine percent (79%) had made full payment toward their restitution, 14 percent had made some payment, and 7 percent had not made any payments. Probation was terminated during the study period for 84 percent of the youth. For these 127 cases, half successfully completed the terms of probation (50%), 40 percent failed, 6 percent were in adult jail, 2 percent moved out of San Diego County, and 2 percent were terminated for other reasons (one individual had a sister willing to care for him, and the other was 19 years of age) (not shown).

Table 4.5 Probation Compliance


Fines: Paid in full 85% Partial payment 5% Delinquent 10% Total ordered 20

Restitution: Paid in full 79% Partial payment 14% Delinquent 7% Total ordered 14

Probation Termination: Successful

50%

Unsuccessful 40% Adult Jail 6% Out of San Diego County 2% Other 2% Total terminated 127


Peers and Recidivism As a preliminary examination of peer influence on delinquency in the current sample, arrest records were reviewed to determine if the crimes were committed alone or with peers. About one-fifth (19%) of the delinquency committed within one year of release involved peers (not shown). A prior history of arrests with peers was not significantly related to arrests with peers following release. As mentioned in the previous chapter, arrests with peers in the past were not associated with arrests involving peers following release, and this variable will be discussed further in the discussion of recidivism predictors.



PREDICTING RECIDIVISM FOLLOWING RELEASE Similar to the discussion of recidivism data for JRF, statistical regression analyses also were performed for Camp Barrett cases using the same procedures previously described in Chapters 2 and 3. As with the JRF sample, Camp Barrett are not first-time offenders. In fact, as expected, their prior arrest history is even more extensive. It is important to keep this information in mind when interpreting the results of the regression analysis. This discussion focuses on the 12-month, follow-up period with re-arrest and true finding as the recidivism measures because the number of cases that could be tracked for each period of time decreases over time, which limits the number of factors that can be analyzed. Recidivism Based on Re-Arrest After elimination of variables without variability or correlated with other factors, eleven variables were included in the regression analysis using re-arrest as the dependent variable. Seven predictor variables were included because they were related to recidivism in the zero-order regression: receiving services that address delinquency needs, receiving TRV counseling, charge type of instant offense (i.e., violent, property, drug-related, and other offenses), highest referral type in the pre-period (i.e., violent, property, drug-related, and other offenses), total arrests with peers in the pre-period, total risk score at entry, and GPA at intake. Four other variables were included: age at release, ethnicity, length of stay, and number of days on the street in the one year following release to account for other characteristics that might impact the relationship between the predictor variables and recidivism. Only one factor predicted being re-arrested within one year of release while controlling for other variables in the model: having a higher risk score at entry predicted that a juvenile would be more likely to be re-arrested (β = 1.2). This finding highlights the challenges facing these youth and need for services to address the risks they face. It is possible that the needs revealed upon arrest are not a complete picture of the needs facing these youth upon entry into Camp Barrett. This disconnect could be resulting in unaddressed needs. Accuracy of needs assessment and a better match to services received could be improved if the assessment was administered closer to the time when programming decisions are made, rather than relying on scores compiled upon arrest. Recidivism Based on True Findings Nine variables were included in the regression analysis using true finding as the dependent variable. Five predictor variables were included because they were related to true finding in the zero-order regression: charge type of instant offense (i.e., violent, property, drug-related, and other offenses), number of family visits between start and release date, number of Thinking for a Change classes, number of criminal conduct/substance abuse classes, and GPA at intake. Four other variables were included: age at release, ethnicity, length of stay, and number of days on the street in the one year following release to account for other characteristics that might impact the relationship between the predictor variables and recidivism.



Like arrest, there was only one significant predictor of receiving a true finding, but it was not a youth’s risk score. Rather, the more Thinking for a Change classes (a cognitive behavioral program that seeks to redirect participants away from anti-social behavior through social skills training) the juvenile attended predicted that he was more likely to have a true finding in the post period (β = 1.3). However, it is important to note that youth who received this programming may have had a greater level of criminal involvement, as measured by a significantly greater number of prior commitment days ordered and longer length of stay at the facility for the current commitment. In addition, there appeared to be considerable variability in the level of service received (ranging from 1 to 28 classes), which is likely related to the fact that these data were collected prior to November 2006, when significant changes were made to how this program was delivered (as described in Chapter 1). When participation in Thinking for a Change was analyzed based on the year admitted to Camp Barrett, youth entering the facility in 2006 were significantly more likely to receive this cognitive behavioral service, reflective of this programmatic change.

IMPACT OF TIME ON RECIDIVISM FOLLOWING RELEASE Additional analyses examining the amount of time between release and a youth being re-arrested (regardless of the outcome) revealed that for the 95 youth who were re-arrested within one year following release, the average amount of time between the two dates was about four and a half months or 136 days (SD = 93.28, range 1 to 352).17 Figure 4.8 graphically shows the percent of clients who remained arrest free during the first 365 days (or 1 year) from 100 percent at zero days (day of release) to 38 percent one year later. This level of detail (i.e., date of each arrest and true finding) was not available for the historical sample. As this figure shows, the steepest decline in arrest-free youth occurred between 60 and 90 days, one month later than for JRF. According to staff and the Probation Department Web site, upon release from Camp Barrett, youth are assigned to the Aftercare Supervision Unit. This unit provides intensive supervision, which includes making community visits, conducting curfew checks, conducting urine testing, and consulting with community organizations to ensure compliance with the case plan for approximately six months, after which youth are transferred to regular supervision for as long as necessary. However, staffing shortfalls have adversely impacted the ability of this unit to accommodate all wards released from the facility. According to staff, these youth are being sent directly to regular supervision, which does not allow them to be stabilized in the community prior to reducing the level of monitoring, an issue the Probation Department may want to more closely monitor in the future. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to evaluate whether juveniles who did not receive services recidivated faster than those who did receive services. Unlike the previous analysis that only considers those who were re-arrested, Kaplan-Meier survival analysis keeps both juveniles who were re-arrested and those who were not re-arrested in the analysis. The cumulative survival plots (Figure 4.8) shows the proportion who have survived (not been re-arrested) at observed times (days since

17 This data is based on PCMS records, as well as adult criminal activity records maintained by the San Diego

County Sheriff’s Department for the 150 juveniles reaching the age of 18 within one year of release.



release). This analysis focused only on services because survival analysis is designed to explore treatment (services) differences that could affect survival times (i.e., the time it takes to be re-arrested). The analysis considered both days to first arrest and days to first true finding. The following variables were used in the analysis: the number of visits between start and release date; and attendance at ART, Character Counts, Thinking for a Change, Life Skills, Building and Grounds Maintenance, AA/NA, and Criminal Conduct/Substance Abuse.18 The final results of the analysis show that those who received services had no significant difference in the time to recidivate than those who did not receive services.

Figure 4.8 Percent with No New Arrests Twelve Months Following Release


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0 60 120 180 240 300 360

Days Since Release

TOTAL = 152


18 TRV was not analyzed because the distribution of censored observations (cases that did not recidivate within

365 days) was substantially different between program participants and non-participants. KM Survival Analysis’s equality testing requires similar censoring patterns between groups.



SUMMARY Based on a random sample of 160 wards entering Camp Barrett between August 2005 and May 2006, the research questions of Project I (Program Analysis) and Project II (Recidivism) were explored. The current study sample reflected the demographic characteristics of the population and also is similar to the historical sample. The level of justice system involvement prior to admission into the current Camp Barrett sample is high, with an average of seven arrests, about five referrals, and about three sustained petitions before entering the facility. Based on the SDRRC, these high-risk youth had an average risk score of 21.77, with only 3.98 on the protective scale, resulting in resiliency scores requiring high or intensive levels of supervision. Outcome measures (i.e., arrests, referrals, and sustained petitions) showed promising results with respect to this population. Though the ability to remain crime free over time is challenging for these youth, the severity of delinquency declined over time for at least half of the sample based on each measure of recidivism for all four follow-up periods (from six months to two years after release). A thorough statistical analysis of predictor variables revealed no program components as influential in predicting success. Camp Barrett youth with higher risk scores at entry were slightly more likely to be re-arrested within one year of release, and those who may have been more criminally entrenched and received cognitive behavioral programming were more likely to have a sustained petition. These findings emphasize the need for proven programs within the institution that address the issues contributing to delinquency. Ideas for specific services related to the needs of these youth are presented in Chapter 6. Inclusion of input from offenders also may be helpful in this process.

CHAPTER 5 YOUTH PERCEPTIONS


MAJOR FINDINGS

Though many youth reported the detention experience was different from what they expected, most gave positive ratings of the condition of the facilities, the staff, and the programs.

Many of the surveyed youth reported living in neighborhoods that may not be conducive to re-entry and few reported receiving re-entry services.

The JRF youth had positive views to share about their current school status and family relationships.

Youth over 18 who had exited Camp Barrett were more likely to have dropped out of school and report they were taking care of themselves.

Both groups reported making positive changes in their peer group, had an adult to turn to, and had realistic plans for the future.


INTRODUCTION To assess the experiences of wards in areas of their lives beyond the justice system (part of Project II), a convenience sample of individuals released from both the Juvenile Ranch Facility (JRF) and Camp Barrett were interviewed one year after release in order to answer the following research question: How are youth doing in other parts of their lives after exiting the program? The interview included questions regarding current living situation, parental involvement, family relationships, academic engagement, employment status, peer influence, social supports, substance use, and prospects for the future, as well as opinions about services received during detention and following release. This chapter presents the results of the 42 interviews conducted between November 2006 and December 2007.

INTERVIEW PROCESS In order to facilitate the process of contacting youth one year after release, facility staff presented consent and locator forms to each ward in the sample just before release. Consent was obtained from the youth, as well as his parents (for those under 18 years of age). Each person consenting to participate in the follow-up interview was asked to complete a locator form, which contained contact information for the ward, all adults living with him, school and/or employer, probation officer, and two other relatives or friends who would know how to locate the youth. When this information failed to reveal the whereabouts of the juvenile one year after release, Probation Case Management System (PCMS) records were searched to determine if the youth was in custody, as well as verify the contact information and probation officer assigned to the case in order to solicit assistance in locating the ward. Interviews were completed over the phone or in person at a neutral location (e.g., fast food restaurant), as well as in custody for those re-committed. Regardless of the setting, each person completing an interview was compensated for his time with a $20 retail gift card.



SAMPLE DESCRIPTION Of the 398 sample cases, 76 consented to an interview. Of these, 42 completed an interview, and 34 could not be located or refused to participate.1 A comparison of the 75 consenting youth to the remaining 323 (for whom consent was not able to be obtained) revealed that the two groups were similar with respect to ethnicity, instant offense, length of stay, SDRRC scores (entry and exit), and criminal activity following release (i.e., recidivism), but that those who consented were older than those who did not. That is, those consenting to an interview were 16.65 years of age on average (SD = 1.21, range 13 to 18) compared to 16.05 for those not agreeing to participate (SD = 1.19, range 12 to 18). Further, youth in the Camp Barrett sample (who also were older on average) were more likely to agree to be interviewed (29%) than the JRF group (13%); however, JRF youth consenting to follow-up contact were more likely complete an interview (69%) than those from Camp Barrett (43%). Those completing interviews and those who could not be located or refused were comparable on all of the remaining characteristics (i.e., no additional differences were identified from available data).

INTERVIEW RESULTS Of the 42 interviews completed through June 2007, 22 were in the JRF sample, and 20 were from the Camp Barrett group. Due to the small sample size, the results are presented for both facilities together.2 Detention Experience To begin to explore the youths’ perspective regarding the facilities, they were asked if the experience was consistent with what they thought it would be like.3 The majority of respondents (69%) indicated that the experience was different (not shown). To follow up, these 29 individuals were asked how it was different. Their responses reflected several different perspectives, all but one of which was positive. Some reflected that time in custody was a chance to make positive changes through participation in unanticipated helpful programs (8 youth). Others noted initial fears were unwarranted, with it being easier (12 youth), allowing greater freedom (6 youth), and involving less fighting (2 individuals) than expected. The following quotes illustrate this positive view.

1 On average, 8.58 attempts were made to contact consenting youth for an interview (SD = 4.22, range 1 to 22). Despite

these repeated attempts at different times of day (morning, afternoon, and evening) and across days of the week (weekdays and weekends), the research team was unable to make contact in 14 cases. Telephone numbers (for all contacts listed when consent was obtained) were disconnected for 8 youth (these numbers included the ones provided when consent was initially given while still in custody, as well as numbers recorded by probation officers in PCMS). Though initially amenable to a follow-up interview, 4 refused when contacted by the research team one year after release. Five youth were unavailable because they were in adult jail, and two were “at large” with whereabouts unknown.

2 Overall, analysis of differences between facilities revealed no significant differences, which may be an artifact of the small sample size. Whenever significant differences were detected, they are discussed.

3 These responses do not control for the number of previous commitments because they were not asked if this commitment was their first or not.



Most youth rated the condi-tions and the programs of the facilities positively.

“I thought it would be really strict. I expected the staff to be yelling in your face and not help

me pursue my goals. It helped me pursue my goals like give me manners and get me on the

right path to what I want to do (Camp Barrett youth).”

“I thought it was going to be more strict and I thought it was going to be like jail and not be

able to walk around but when I got there, I thought it was better than East Mesa because you

get better programs and more freedom to walk around and be outside (JRF youth).” Only two wards experienced a stricter environment than anticipated. Those indicating that the experience was consistent (31%) were asked to describe what it was like (not shown). Four individuals thought it was easy (“like sixth-grade camp”), five felt it was strict, one focused on the ability to be outdoors, one appreciated the maturity and sense of responsibility gained while detained, one noted the opportunity to address substance use issues, and one mentioned the ability to exercise as consistent with expectations. Respondents also were asked to rate the environmental conditions at the facility (i.e., cleanliness, food, and recreational activities) on a three-point ordinal scale: good, fair, or poor (Table 5.1). This scale was purposefully kept short to ensure that the youth understood the difference between each choice. Recreational activities received the highest ratings, with slightly fewer rating cleanliness and food as good. Specifically, 67 percent stated that recreational activities were “good,” 26 percent believed they were “fair,” and 7 percent rated them as “poor.” Over half (57%) of the wards rated the cleanliness of the facility as good, with an additional 31 percent rating it as fair. Similarly, with respect to the food, 48 percent believed it was good, and 38 percent rated it as fair. Fourteen percent thought the food was poor. A similar question was included in the in-depth staff surveys (discussed in Chapter 6). A higher proportion of staff members provided “good” ratings in these areas, particularly with respect to cleanliness and food.

Table 5.1 Rating of Environmental Conditions

Good Fair Poor

Recreation 67% 26% 7%

Cleanliness 57% 31% 12%

Food 48% 38% 14%

TOTAL 42

SOURCE: Youth Interviews for PEACE Study, SANDAG

Respondents also shared the aspects of incar-ceration that they liked and those that they disliked. Seventy-four percent (74%) indicated that there were things about being in custody



that they liked and were asked to share three positive things about the experience. Overall, common themes that were noted included:

programs offered in the facility (17 respondents): for example, “I liked the Phoenix House Program because it helped me face my problems and drug addiction.” (JRF youth);

the ability to exercise (11 respondents);

the opportunity to attend school (9 respondents): for example, “I liked the school there. They taught me patience, responsibility. I'm able to achieve my goals.” (Camp Barrett youth); and

the positive influence of staff (5 respondents): for example, “They have a lot of opportunities to be successful in the program because they guide you in the right directions. The staff always gave me good advice.” (JRF youth)

At the end of the interview, 14 youth (33%) offered additional positive comments, including the following.

“Overall it was a good experience. Some of the stuff they teach you, like how to avoid bad situations, that was a good class. Looking back, I learned a lot.” (JRF youth)

“It was good. Got my mind off negativity; glad I went. If I hadn't gone I would be in prison now.” (Camp Barrett youth)

“My school experience at Barrett was very good. [The teacher] helped me a lot and it was the best experience because he knows how to explain things very well when I didn't understand.” (Camp Barrett youth)

With respect to the negative aspects of incarceration, 86 percent (36 youth) had something to share. Common themes included:

lack of freedom (16 respondents): for example, “It's never fun to be locked up. It sucks to be away from home and family and not being able to do what you want to do.” (JRF youth)

conflicts with staff (14 respondents): for example, “Sometimes the [probation officers (POs)] will ignore you after you ask for stuff. Sometimes the POs wouldn't give clear and proper directions. Sometimes the POs will be in a bad mood and take it out on the wards. Like if you don't do something right… they'll give you two markdowns if you don't have your shirt tucked in.” (JRF youth);

separation from family and friends (8 respondents);

lack of privacy (3 respondents): for example, “I don't like how you shower with three other guys” (JRF youth);

extreme weather conditions (4 respondents); and

food (3 respondents): for example, “The food feels like microwave food…” (JRF youth);



clothing/shoes (3 respondents): for example, “…The clothes make me feel dirty…” (JRF youth) and “Shoes. [They] never have anybody's size.” (Camp Barrett youth).

Services Received in Custody Each respondent was asked about participation in the programs listed in Table 5.2.4 This list was based upon input from program staff regarding services provided in each facility at the time the first interview was due to be completed (November 2006). Three of the programs were offered in both facilities: Character Counts, Thinking for a Change, and Aggression Replacement Training (ART).

Character Counts, a program provided in hundreds of schools and nonprofit organizations nationwide, is offered to all youth at JRF and Camp Barrett, as opposed to other programs that are restricted to those needing the service (e.g., ART). As a result, participation in this program was more frequent than the other two provided at both facilities (72%). Two follow-up questions were asked of those participating in this program because it involves changing values rather than helping with behavior modification. Of the 28 wards remembering participating in Character Counts, the majority (86%) reported that they use the values taught at least “sometimes” and have found these values helpful or very helpful (89%).

Half (50%) remembered participating in Thinking for a Change. Eighty-four percent (84%) of these Thinking for a Change participants believe that the program has been helpful or very helpful in improving their problem solving, social skills, and thinking patterns.

About one-quarter (26%) indicated participation in ART. Two follow-up questions were asked because this program involves application of techniques to control emotions. Five of these nine youth reported that they continued using ART techniques at least sometimes, and all but two shared that ART was helpful or very helpful in controlling anger.

4 In order to test the validity of self-report information regarding service provision, these data were compared to

information obtained through the PCMS. In many cases, the proportion self-reporting participation in programming was greater than that contained in the official record (PCMS). This finding is related to the fact that memories can be inaccurate (e.g., mistake what a program is called), and data is sometimes missing in PCMS.



Table 5.2 Services Received in Custody

JRF and Camp Barrett

Character Counts 72%

Thinking for a Change 50%

Aggression Replacement Therapy 26%

TOTAL 35-39

JRF Only

Individual Counseling 75%

Phoenix House Therapeutic Community 70%

Literacy 57%

TOTAL 20-21

Camp Barrett Only

Certificate Programs* 60%

Life Skills 47%

Conflict Management 37%

Criminal Conduct and Substance Abuse Treatment 32%

Teen Relationship Violence 21%

Fire Academy 10%

TOTAL 19-20

*These programs occur in the kitchen or the Building and Grounds Department.

NOTE: Cases with missing information are not included.


During the interviews, youth were asked only about the programs available during the time they were detained. The following programs were available at JRF only: individual counseling, literacy, and Phoenix House. Consequently, only JRF youth were asked about these programs (i.e., 22 youth).

Three-quarters (75%) of the JRF youth reported that they received individual counseling during their stay. All 15 of these wards found the counseling helpful or very helpful.

Seventy percent (70%) of the JRF respondents reported participating in the Phoenix House Therapeutic Community designed to address substance use. Twelve (86%) (12) of these 14 youth found it helpful or very helpful in stopping alcohol and other drug use.

Slightly more than half (57%) of the JRF youth participated in the literacy program, a 45-minute period set aside to read or write letters. Ten of these 12 individuals described it as helpful or very helpful in improving their reading or writing.



Since Camp Barrett detains youth for a longer period of time on average, it is able to offer programs not possible in settings in which the time served is less than three months. Specifically, certification programs, Life Skills, Conflict Management, Criminal Conduct and Substance Abuse, Fire Academy, and Teen Relationship Violence were provided only at Camp Barrett. Thus, input regarding these programs was solicited only from Camp Barrett youth (i.e., 20 youth).

The certification programs in kitchen or building and grounds maintenance were the most common services received by interview respondents (60%). Of these 12 youth, 9 felt it was helpful or very helpful in preparing them for a job.

Almost half (47%) of the youth participated in Life Skills, all nine of whom felt it was helpful or very helpful in preparing for life upon release from Camp Barrett.

Conflict Management was less commonly received because it involves the training of select youth as conflict managers. Upon training completion, these youth fulfilled the conflict management role during the remainder of their stay. About one-third of the youth remembered participation in Conflict Management (37%), all seven of whom indicated that it was helpful or very helpful in preparing them for preventing and dealing with conflict.

About one-third (32%) of the respondents shared that they received Criminal Conduct and Substance Abuse programming. Three of these six youth said that the class was helpful or very helpful in stopping their participation in crime. Similarly, three noted that it was very helpful in curbing use of alcohol and other drugs.

One-fifth (21%) of those interviewed participated in the Teen Relationship Violence program. All of these four individuals, except one, viewed it as helpful in changing their views about dating and other related violence.

Two (10%) youth participated in the Fire Academy, one of whom found it helpful in preparing for a job in fire fighting.

Opinions Regarding Facility Staff In the field of psychotherapy, the therapeutic alliance has been found to be strongly associated with outcomes (Milkman & Wanberg, 2007; Skeem & Louden, 2005). To examine the relationship with facility staff from the perspective of wards, the youth were asked to indicate their agreement with 24 statements5 on a five-point, ordinal scale: never, rarely, sometimes, often, or always. This scale was adapted from the original seven-point scale used by Skeem (2004) to simplify the categories for the juvenile audience. As Table 5.3 shows, the relationship between wards and facility staff is generally positive. Of the 13 positively phrased statements, about two-thirds of the respondents or more indicated that each of the statements occurred at least

5 The statements were adapted from a reliable instrument on probation officer-adult probationer relationships developed

by Skeem (2004).

Youth described facility staff as fair and respectful.



sometimes, with two exceptions. In one exception, “Staff members are people that I trust,” it may be that it is hard to truly trust someone in a detention situation. For the other exception, “I felt comfortable discussing the things that worried me with (JRF/Camp Barrett) staff,” a significantly higher proportion of JRF youth indicated that this statement was true at least sometimes (86%) than those released from Camp Barrett (25%). Further, wards released from JRF were significantly less likely to indicate that “Staff did not praise me for the good things I did” at least sometimes compared to Camp Barrett youth. The ratings of these statements suggest that the relationship between staff and youth at JRF is slightly better than those at Camp Barrett, which is interesting given the shorter length of stay providing less time to bond. However, when an overall score is computed in which the 11 negative statements are reverse coded so that higher scores indicate a stronger relationship with facility staff, there is no statistically significant difference between the two groups (41.73 for JRF and 39.65 for Camp Barrett).

Table 5.3 Positive View of Facility Staff

Positively Phrased Statements

Staff explained what I was supposed to do and why I needed to do it. 90%

Staff treated me like everyone else in the facility. 88%

Staff showed me respect in all their interactions with me. 86%

Staff treated me fairly. 83%

Staff was warm and friendly with me. 81%

Staff cared about me as a person. 78%

Staff truly wanted to help me. 78%

Staff encouraged me to work together with them. 76%

Staff knew that they could trust me. 73%

When I had trouble doing what I was supposed to do, (JRF/Camp Barrett) staff talked with me and listened to what I had to say.

69%

I felt safe enough to be open and honest with (JRF/Camp Barrett) staff. 60%

I felt comfortable discussing the things that worried me with (JRF/Camp Barrett) staff.6

57%

Staff members are people that I trust. 52%

6 JRF youth were significantly more likely to indicate that this statement was true at least sometimes than wards released

from Camp Barrett (86% and 25% respectively).



Table 5.3 Positive View of Facility Staff (cont’d.)

Negatively Phrased Statements

Staff expected me to do all the work alone and did not provide enough help. 21%

Staff did not praise me for the good things I did.7 26%

Staff made unreasonable demands of me. 29%

Staff did not seem to want to help me overcome my problems 36%

Staff was not clear about what I had to do. 38%

Staff talked down to me. 38%

Staff put me down when I did something wrong. 43%

Staff did not take enough time to understand me. 43%

Staff was looking for reasons to punish me. 48%

Staff did not give me enough of a chance to say what I wanted to say. 52%

Staff did not trust what I said 60%

TOTAL 41-42

NOTE: Percentages are based on those indicating sometimes, often, and always combined. Cases with missing information are not included.


Release/Re-Entry Experience

Services Received Upon Release from Custody When youth were asked if they received services upon release from custody, less than one-third (29%) indicated that they had. These post-release services varied widely, including the Youth Day Center (YDC), Teen Recovery Center (TRC), job skills class, life skills, tutors, drug programs (including Drug Court), the Regional Center in the Department of Rehabilitation, and medication. A follow-up question asked if these services were helpful and all but two of the eleven (82%) indicated that they were. When asked to describe the specific ways the programs were helpful, youth noted the focus on sobriety, education, employment, and interactions with positive peers. For example, “[It] made me clean and made me stay clean. [It] kept me away from my old friends. It made me want to go to school and catch up on my credits” (JRF youth). The role of the Probation Department in facilitating reentry was explored as well. Only about one quarter (26%) of all the youth interviewed indicated that Probation could have done more to facilitate reentry. A follow-up question asked them to specify what Probation could have done. Six

7 JRF youth were significantly less likely to indicate that this following statement occurred at least sometimes than wards

released from Camp Barrett (9% and 45% respectively).



Some youth return to homes and neighborhoods not conducive to successful reentry.

of these 11 individuals wanted more services in the community, including substance use treatment, counseling, and assistance in going back to school. Four would have preferred reduced monitoring. For example, “Let me off probation. [They] were always on me. [It was] too much, wouldn't leave me alone.” (Camp Barrett youth). Current Life Situation Life circumstances impact the trajectories of individuals. Some of these factors put individuals at risk for delinquency, and others provide a protective influence. Neighborhood milieu, parental involvement and family relationship, academic engagement, employment, peer influence, other social supports, and substance use have all been shown to be associated with delinquency (Hawkins, Herrenkohl, Farrington, Brewer, Catalano, Harachi, & Cothern, 2000). Each area can impact in either a positive or negative manner. A series of questions on the youth interview were designed to reveal these circumstances for wards from JRF and Camp Barrett one year after release. With respect to living circumstances, all but seven (83%) lived in a home with a parent or guardian. These seven (18%) were in custody, creating a situation in which they were easier to find and possibly more likely to participate in the interview. None indicated that they were homeless or in residing in a residential treatment facility. To examine their family situation, youth were asked: Who mostly takes care of you (provides you with food, clothing, a place to live, and money)? Figure 5.1 shows that JRF youth were significantly more likely to be currently cared for by their parents (100%) compared to Camp Barrett youth (50%). Other Camp Barrett youth reported being cared for by themselves (40%) or by other family members (10%). This finding is explained by the fact that all Camp Barrett youth were legal adults at the time of the interview (18.65 years of age on average, SD = .49, range 18 to 19), while those in the JRF sample were younger (16.82 average age, SD = 1.18, range 14 to 18). Respondents also were asked to rate the frequency of crime and violence in their neighborhood according to the following categories: always, sometimes, and never. As Table 5.4 shows, many of the youth interviewed lived in neighborhoods where criminal activity and violent victimization occurred fairly regularly (always or sometimes). Specifically, about two-thirds or more reported an awareness of local arrests, gang activity, drug sales, and people being beaten up.



Figure 5.1 Primary Caregiver One Year Post Release*

0% 0%

100%

10%

50%

40%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Self Parents Other Family Members

JRF (n = 22) Camp Barrett (n = 20)

* Differences significant at .05 level.


Table 5.4 Neighborhood Characteristics

Always Sometimes Never

Someone arrested 50% 33% 17%

Gang activity 45% 31% 24%

Drug sales 45% 24% 31%

Someone beaten up 26% 36% 38%

Someone shot 21% 36% 43%

Someone stabbed 14% 31% 55%

TOTAL 42



To explore criminal family influence, respondents were asked if anyone living with them had been convicted of a crime and if this person was incarcerated, as well as the family relationship to this criminally-involved person. Over one-third (38%) of those interviewed indicated that someone



living with them was criminally involved, and all but one of these 16 criminal household members (94%) were currently incarcerated. The relationship of this person to the youth included a sibling (5), parent (4), other relative (a brother-in-law, cousins, grandmother, and uncle) (4), an ex-partner to one of his parents (1), and a friend/roommate (1).

Parental Involvement and Family Relationship Lack of parental supervision has been linked to delinquency and substance use (Cookston, 1999). Further, strong relationships with parents have been linked to lower likelihood of engaging in problem behavior in general. Specifically, parents are more effective at redirecting their children away from deviant behavior even in distressed neighborhoods if they are acquainted with their offsprings’ friends, are aware of their activities, and establish clear rules and expectations (MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice, 2006). To examine parental involvement and supervision, youth were asked a series of questions. The first set of questions focused on educational involvement, including the frequency of contact between parents and teachers (Figure 5.2), as well as parental monitoring of homework (Figure 5.3).8 As these figures show, parental educational involvement was not commonly noted by these youth, with 76 percent saying that their parents rarely or never met with their teachers, and 71 percent indicating that they rarely or never checked their homework. These findings suggest the need for services provided to parent(s)/guardian(s) regarding guidance in appropriate supervision for these youth.

Figure 5.2 Frequency of Parental Interaction with Teachers

18%

6%

35%41%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Often Sometimes Rarely Never

TOTAL = 14


8 These questions applied primarily to youth in the JRF sample. Although two individuals in the Camp Barrett group

attended school full time, all were legal adults, making parental involvement with homework less relevant.



Figure 5.3 Frequency of Parental Review of Homework

14% 14% 14%

57%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Often Sometimes Rarely Never

TOTAL = 14

NOTE: Percentages do not equal 100 due to rounding.


Parental social involvement with the youth was explored through a series of questions regarding what the youth’s guardians thought of their friends, how much they knew of their activities, and how often they dined together.9 As Table 5.5 shows, while about two-thirds (67%) of the youth reported their parents knew all or most of their friends, only five percent said their parents approved of all of these individuals, and 23 percent said they approved of most. Further, none of the youth reported their parents knew all of their friends parents and less than one in five (15%) said they knew most.

9 A study by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University (2005) found that regular family

meals was associated with lower levels of substance use, indicating that this factor is an appropriate measure of parental engagement.



Table 5.5 Parental Involvement with Friends

Quantity of Friends Parents Currently Know

All 21%

Most 45%

Some 31%

None 2%

Current Parental Opinion of Friends

Like all 5%

Like most 23%

Like some 50%

Like none 23%

Quantity of Friends’ Parents That Parents Currently Know

All 0%

Most 15%

Some 56%

None 29%

TOTAL 40-42

NOTE: Percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding. Cases with missing information are not included.


When the youth were asked to describe how much of their activities their parents were currently aware of (Table 5.6), very few (12%) reported full disclosure, but almost one-third (31%) did say their parents knew “most” of what they do. In addition, 43 percent said that this level of knowledge was an increase from what it was prior to their incarceration. It is important to note that these results are based on the youths’ perception and may not match the views of their parents; however, the fact that almost half indicated that the parental knowledge had increased since incarceration may be related to increased voluntary disclosure on the part of the youth suggesting a positive change.



Many youth report positive change in family interactions.

Table 5.6 Parental Knowledge of Youth’s Activities

Current Parental Knowledge of Youth’s Activities

Know all of the time 12%

Know most of the time 31%

Know some of the time 36%

Never know 21%

TOTAL 42

Parental Knowledge of Youth’s Activities Relative to Period Prior to Incarceration

More 43%

About the same 43%

Less 15%

TOTAL 40



With respect to daily interaction, JRF youth were more likely to report participating in family meals, with 55 percent indicating frequent family meals compared to 20 percent of the Camp Barrett group (Table 5.7). This finding is again related to the fact that all youth in the JRF sample live with their parents as previously mentioned. Further, the frequency of this interaction has increased for almost half (41%) of the JRF sample, another indicator of a possible improved relationship (though the difference in proportions compared to Camp Barrett is not statistically significant).

Table 5.7 Family Meals Frequent for JRF Youth

JRF Camp Barrett

Frequency of Family Meals*

Frequently 55% 20%

Sometimes 9% 40%

Rarely 18% 25%

Never 18% 15%

Frequency of Family Meals Relative to Period Prior to Incarceration

More 41% 15%

About the same 50% 55%

Less 9% 30%

TOTAL 22 20

* Differences significant at .05 level.





The interpersonal relationship with family was examined through questions regarding frequency of parental expressions of pride, frequency of parental expressions of pride relative to period prior to incarceration, bond to parents, and the level of closeness with parents relative to period prior to incarceration. With respect to parental expressions of pride (Figure 5.4), the majority of respondents (56%) indicated their parents were proud of them often or almost always, and only 29 percent said pride was shown rarely or never. When asked if this frequency had changed after incarceration (increased or decreased), about half (58%) said it remained unchanged, 28 percent that it had decreased, and 15 percent that it had increased (not shown).

Figure 5.4 Youth Perception of Frequency of Parental Expressions of Pride

56%

15%

29%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Almost Always/Often Sometimes Rarely/Never

TOTAL = 42


When the youth were asked to describe how close they felt to their parents (Figure 5.5), JRF youth were significantly more likely to indicate that they felt “very close” to their parents (59% compared to 25% for Camp Barrett). Conversely, individuals in the Camp Barrett sample were more likely to feel “not close” to their parents (25% compared to 5% of those in the JRF group). It is difficult to know the specific dynamics driving this difference without further study; however, it could indicate that the social bonds for youth incarcerated at Camp Barrett are weaker, which could be related to their progression in the juvenile justice system.



Figure 5.5 Strong Parental Bond

59%

36%

25%

50%

25%

5%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

00%

Very Close Close Not Close

JRF (n = 22) Camp Barrett (n = 20)


The parental relationship was relatively stable for both groups, with about half (52%) believing that it was the same as the time before placement in custody, 31 percent saying it was closer, and 17 percent indicating that it was less close (not shown). This finding suggests that the emotional connection children feel toward their parents is strong and does not waiver much based on individual behavior or life circumstance, at least early in their criminal careers. Beyond the parent-child relationship, almost two-thirds (62%) of the youth said that the overall relationship with family members was better than in the past, 26 percent indicated it was the same, and only 12 percent believed that it was worse (Figure 5.6). The exact nature of the relationship with family members is unknown. These individuals could have a positive influence over the youth or negative. For example, a delinquent sibling would probably have a negative influence, while family members with positive social ties could help redirect behavior away from criminality.



Camp Barrett youth have need for vocational training.

Figure 5.6 Youth Perception of How Family Interaction Changed After Incarceration

62%

26%

12%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Better About the Same Worse

TOTAL = 42


Academic Engagement The self-reported educational status of JRF and Camp Barrett youth at the time of the interview is shown in Table 5.8. Most of the JRF group (91%) were either currently in school or were in the process of or had successfully received their general educational development (GED) certification. In comparison, less than two-thirds (60%) of the Camp Barrett youth had graduated or received their GED, while 40 percent had been expelled or dropped out.10 The Camp Barrett sample was 17 years of age on average upon entry into the facility. These interviews were completed one year following release from a period of incarceration lasting an average of four months; therefore, these youth were adults at the time they were answering the interview questions. The large proportion of school dropouts among these adults presents a situation with limited employment opportunities suggesting the need for more vocational programs.

10 The reason for dropping out of school is unknown.



Table 5.8 Educational Status*

JRF Camp Barrett

Attending school full-time 77% 10%

Expelled 0% 5%

Dropped out 5% 35%

Graduated 5% 20%

Attending GED preparation classes 5% 10%

Completed GED 9% 20%

TOTAL 22 20

*Differences significant at .05 level.



To determine how much the youth liked school, respondents were asked their current perception, as well as if it had changed over time. As Table 5.9 shows, over three-quarters (79%) of the youth said that they currently liked school at least somewhat (42% liked it a lot, and 37% liked it somewhat). When asked how this compared to the period before incarceration, 16 percent they liked school more now.

Table 5.9 Opinions About School

Current View

Like it a lot 42%

Like it somewhat 37%

Do not like it at all 21%

View Prior to Incarceration

More 16%

About the same 42%

Less 42%

TOTAL 19




Over half of youth report better grades after commitment.

Questions regarding academic performance were posed only to youth still in school and focused on current grades (Figure 5.7), as well as comparisons to the period prior to incarceration (Table 5.10). As Figure 5.7 shows, over three-quarters of the youth in school reported getting As (39%) or Bs (39%), and none reported failing.

Figure 5.7 Self-Reported Current Grades

39% 39%

11% 11%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Mostly A's Mostly B's Mostly C's No Grades

TOTAL = 13


To delve more deeply into the educational experience of youth attending school one year after release from custody, respondents were asked to compare their current situation to the period prior to their commitment (Table 5.10). With respect to grades, over half (59%) indicated that their grades were better than prior to commitment into either JRF or Camp Barrett. Attendance improved for over one-third (37%).

Table 5.10 Self-Reported Grades and Attendance Compared to Period Before Incarceration

Grades Attendance

Better 59% 37%

About the Same 35% 47%

Worse 6% 16% TOTAL 17 19




Two in five youth report changing their peer group.

Employment Table 5.11 shows the employment status of wards one year after release from the facility. The difference between the two groups is related to the fact that the Camp Barrett group is older (all adults) and that the JRF sample consists of full-time students. Not surprisingly, half of the JRF sample was not in the labor force (50%) at the time of the interview, 23 percent worked part time (which can be up to 35 hours a week), and another 23 percent were actively looking for employment. In comparison, over one-third (35%) of the Camp Barrett youth were employed full-time and one-quarter (25%) part-time. The rest (30%) were either looking for work or not in the labor force (10%).11

Table 5.11 Employment Status

JRF Camp Barrett

Employed full time (35 hours or more/week) 5% 35%

Employed part time (less than 35 hours/week) 23% 25%

Unemployed but looking for work 23% 30%

Not in the labor force 50% 10%

TOTAL 22 20



Peer Influence The impact of positive peer relationships on reduced delinquency is well known (Surgeon General, 2001; Hawkins, et al., 2000). The first question regarding peers was designed to highlight changes following incarceration. Forty percent (40%) indicated that they no longer have the same friends as before spending time in custody. The most frequent reason for this change, cited by 11 of these 18 youth, was that their former friends were bad influences as the following quotes illustrate.

“Because I realized being around the same people will get me sent back to [JRF] because they're always doing the same stuff.” (JRF youth).

“I haven't talked to them anymore because I want to change and be better. They try to convince me to do bad stuff.” (JRF youth).

“…They do like negative things and stuff. I hang around with people who do good stuff now.” (Camp Barrett youth).

11 The reason for lack of labor force participation is not known.



“Cause I changed my ways. I moved on to bigger and better things, and they were still bad and gang-banging.” (Camp Barrett youth).

Other reasons included losing touch with these people while in custody (four), that these friends used drugs (two), or were not true friends (one). To examine current peer influence, youth were asked how many close friends (those that they spend most of their time with) exhibited behaviors as specified on the Adolescent Attitude section of the Teen Conflict Survey by Bosworth and Espelage (1995). As Table 5.12 shows, youth were asked to estimate the quantity of their friends that engage in four different risk-taking behaviors and three positive activities on the following scale: all, most, a few, or none. In terms of positive behaviors, while almost half (45%) said all or most of their friends did their homework, far fewer (7% and 12%, respectively) said they had intervened in a fight or were members of a religious community. In terms of negative behaviors, around one-third said all or most of their friends were involved in gang activity (31%) or aggressive acts (33%). Fewer reported being encouraged by their peers to engage in illegal behavior (17%) or that their peers were committing acts of vandalism (5%).

Table 5.12 Peer Behavior in Past 30 Days

All or Most Friends

Few Friends or None

Positive Behaviors

Did homework 45% 55%

Stopped a fight 7% 93%

Participated in religious activities 12% 88%

Negative Behaviors

Suggested illegal behavior 17% 83%

Vandalism 5% 95%

Gang activities 31% 69%

Hit or threatened violence 33% 68%

TOTAL 31-42



In addition to the percentages presented in Table 5.12, an overall score was computed. For the overall score, ratings for the positive behaviors listed in Table 5.12 were reverse-coded. Higher scores indicate greater exposure to friends who engage in socially acceptable behavior. The lowest possible score was 7, and the highest possible score was 28. The range for interview respondents was 8 to 20. Though JRF youth had a higher level of positive peer influence (15.88) than those in the Camp Barrett sample (14.00), this difference was not statistically significant.



Youth report continued substance use after release.

Most youth report trusted relationship with an adult.

Social Supports In addition to family and peer influences, other social supports also have been identified as protective factors against delinquency (Arthur, et al., 2002). The youth interviews focused on two of these influences: religion and adult role models (Table 5.13). Religious participation was rare, with over one-third (37%) reporting that they never attend religious functions and another one-third (32%) attending rarely. Monthly or weekly attendance was reported by 10 percent and 22 percent, respectively. Further, the majority (61%) said the level of participation had not changed; however, a relationship with a trusted adult was commonly reported. A majority (86%) answered affirmatively to knowing at least one adult, other than a parent/guardian, that they felt comfortable talking to.

Table 5.13 Social Supports

Frequency of Religious Participation

Never 37%

Rarely 32%

Monthly 10%

Weekly 22%

Frequency of Religious Participation Relative to the Period Prior to Incarceration

More 17%

About the same 61%

Less 22%

Acquainted with Trusted Adult

Yes 86%

No 14%

TOTAL 41-42

NOTE: Cases with missing information are not included. Percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding.


Substance Use To assess current substance use in the community, youth (not in custody) were asked how many times they used in the past month (Table 5.14). This question was adapted from the Sage Baseline Survey. Responses ranged from zero (never) to 30 (daily). Overall, almost three-quarters (71%) indicated that they had used alcohol or other drugs during the prior 30 days. This proportion drops to



less than half (43%) when the analysis is restricted to illegal drugs. Current use of alcohol and other drugs was reported weekly by those interviewed. Cigarette smoking was the most frequently used substance (10 times a month), followed by marijuana (7.40 times in the past month on average), and alcohol (6.69 times). Binge drinking (i.e., five or more alcoholic drinks at one time) occurred five times monthly on average. Of the more serious drugs, cocaine and methamphetamine were used similarly (1.63 times in the last 30 days and 1.57 times, respectively). Participation in drug sales was reported less often (0.92 days on average in the past month) (not shown). Despite the fact that JRF has a therapeutic community designed to address substance use issues, there was no significant difference in self-reported substance use between the two groups.

Table 5.14 Average Number of Days in Past Month Used Alcohol and Other Drugs

Mean

Smoked a cigarette* 10.00

Used marijuana 7.40

Drank any alcohol, including beer, wine, or hard liquor 6.69

Had five or more alcoholic drinks at one time 5.06

Used cocaine 1.63

Used methamphetamine 1.57

TOTAL 35

* The median is presented for cigarette smoking to control for outliers skewing the results.

NOTE: The seven youth interviewed in custody for the prior 30 days were not asked this question.


Prospects for the Future To assess the aspirations among this population, youth were asked to share what they think they will be doing when they are 21. Almost three-quarters (74%) expected to be employed, and some youth were very specific about the type of job. As one respondent said, “Hopefully working on a cruise ship. I got a ServSafe certificate and... [I] want to work in [the] food department, see different places.” (Camp Barrett youth) The next most frequent plan involved college or technical school (26%). One JRF youth hoped “to be studying to be an EMT [Emergency Medical Technician], having a job, getting my life straight.” Other positive plans included having a family and/or supporting a family (7), living independently (7), finishing school (5), owning a home (3), and owning a car (2). Though the general view was positive, there were some who were less optimistic. Three indicated that they would be drinking alcohol and two thought it was likely that they would be incarcerated. One person had no plans. Despite the age differences between the two groups, there was no significant difference between JRF and Camp Barrett youth regarding prospects for the future.



SUMMARY Forty-two interviews were conducted with youth one year after their release from either JRF (22 respondents) or Camp Barrett (20 respondents) to provide insight regarding the experiences of incarcerated juveniles beyond participation in the justice system (part of Project II). The results presented in this chapter showed that this sample of youth did not vary significantly by facility, with the exception of life aspects related to the older age of the Camp Barrett group. Overall, while many youth reported the detention experience was different from what they expected, most gave positive ratings for the condition of the facilities and the staff they interacted with and shared positive feedback regarding the programs. At the time of the follow-up interview, many of the youth reported living in neighborhoods that may not be conducive to re-entry and less than one-third received re-entry services. The JRF youth, who were more likely to be living at home, had generally positive views to share about their current school status and family relationships. Youth who had exited Camp Barrett, on the other hand, were more likely to have dropped out of school and be taking care of themselves rather than under the care of a parent. Both groups reported making positive changes in their peer group, had an adult to turn to, and had plans for the future.

CHAPTER 6 PROGRAM STAFF PERCEPTIONS


MAJOR FINDINGS

Staff members at JRF and Camp Barrett indicated that work environment and staff morale were positive at the facilities, though burnout still exists for about half of the respondents.

The main suggestion for management to help with burnout was greater staff allocation, though this issue of staffing constraints applied primarily to Camp Barrett.

Staff members seemed to view their role in managing the detained population of youth as focusing on communication, rather than using forceful tactics to maintain cooperation.

With respect to programs effectively addressing the needs of wards, staff opinion indicated that work readiness is critical to reducing delinquency among this population.

Ratings of statements regarding youth behavior highlighted the necessity of incarceration for some youth, as well as the importance of addressing needs.

Perceived areas of unmet need in the facility included substance abuse, mental health, and work experience.

According to staff, predictors of success included parental supervision and abstinence from substance use.


INTRODUCTION As part of Project III, staff members at both the Juvenile Ranch Facility (JRF) and Camp Barrett were solicited for their input during summer 2006 regarding program implementation, management, and effectiveness. Two survey instruments were used to capture this information. In order to obtain input from all staff regarding juvenile behavior and the role of staff, a one-page survey was distributed to everyone working directly with youth at both facilities. In addition, an in-depth survey was sent to a convenience sample of 30 program staff including directors, senior and deputy probation officers, administrative assistants, and program contractors who provide services at one of the two facilities. Prior research has shown that relationships are the primary source of control for juvenile behavior (Roush, 1996b). Further, it has been argued that the success of juvenile detention programs hinges on the interpersonal relationships between staff and wards, similar to the importance of therapeutic relationships in treatment (Milkman & Wanberg, 2007; Roush, 1996a). Therefore, it is important to know staff perceptions when assessing the impact of the juvenile programs. Research findings from these surveys are presented in the aggregate with any poignant differences between facilities highlighted.

GENERAL STAFF SURVEY Survey Description The general staff survey was distributed to staff members at both JRF and Camp Barrett to give everyone the opportunity to provide input for this study and assess staff perceptions as related to serving detained youth. Purposefully designed to minimize the impact on staff workload while still



obtaining valuable information (one-page, two-sided with all questions based on ordinal scales), the instrument included two sets of questions. The first set was comprised of 12 statements asking respondents to rate their level of agreement (using a 5-point, ordinal scale where 1 was “strongly agree” and 5 was “strongly disagree”) with positively and negatively phrased questions regarding the role institutions play in rehabilitation and how likely rehabilitation is with the juvenile population. The second set of questions included 16 statements (rated on the same scale) regarding the role of staff in the rehabilitation process. In total, staff rated 28 statements. Sample Description As previously described in Chapter 2, a total of 160 general surveys were distributed to all staff in direct contact with wards (80 at each site) at JRF and Camp Barrett. For JRF, 46 surveys were returned for a 58 percent response rate. The response rate was 38 percent for Camp Barrett, with 30 completed surveys sent back to the SANDAG research team. In an effort to preserve anonymity, the survey did not contain any questions regarding the characteristics of the respondents; therefore, further details about the sample are not available. Survey Results Table 6.1 shows the percentage of survey respondents who either “strongly agreed” or “agreed” with each of the 28 statements. The number of respondents answering each question ranged from 74 to 76 people because occasionally, one or two respondents skipped a question.

Many of the staff surveyed expressed a feeling of compassion for the youth they work with, as reflected by the high level of agreement with the view that these wards are often limited by their family situation (68%) and that they are a product of their environment (59%).

The majority of staff surveyed (two-thirds or more) also demonstrated an understanding of learning principles for how to effectively work with youth, including clearly communicating rules and expectations (i.e., providing rules in writing (83%) and explaining reasons for orders (65%)), treating the youth with compassion (75%), and modeling appropriate behavior (72%). In addition, around half or more also valued the importance that personal relationships can have with the youth (i.e., having someone believe in them (83%) and taking an interest in them (61%)), as long as certain boundaries are not crossed, and that “hands-on” methods of discipline, such as pepper spray, are not always the most appropriate (59%). Only about one-third (32%) thought that conversations should be kept “short and businesslike,” again demonstrating that the nature of personal contact is an important element in the staff-ward relationship.

What helped me… change was the officers’ always staying on us about proper etiquette and respect. What I realized was when you show manners and respect towards people, you’re more likely to earn their respect and to ultimately obtain what you want out of life. Also, once you’ve earned somebody’s respect, you have more respect for yourself. You also have confidence and belief in yourself and feel you can accomplish anything you put your mind to

–Quote from youth at Camp Barrett



Despite these positive views regarding the ideal staff-ward relationship, around half of the staff conveyed a sense of mistrust regarding the wards, as expressed by their view that juveniles will take advantage of staff when possible (59%), that they have negative attitudes (53%), that it is better not to get too close to wards (53%), and that they never should be completely trusted (48%). This cautious nature may be reflective of the characteristics of the population served given that the proportion of wards in both JRF and Camp Barrett assessed with protective San Diego Regional Resiliency Checkup (SDRRC) scores in the individual domains are the lowest of the six domains measured. The individual domain is the one in which valuing honesty is assessed.

In terms of their view of rehabilitation, the majority of staff felt that rehabilitation is possible. For example, respondents agreed that juveniles need intervention and treatment while detained (80%) and that it should not be left to mental health workers (i.e., only 18% agreed with a statement indicating the opposite opinion). In addition, while almost all felt commitments were a necessary intervention for some youth (95%) and that treatment programs should not only be in the community, around four in five felt that there should be other options in addition to institutions for addressing the needs of these youth. Around one in three also noted that some youth are placed in institutions inappropriately (38%); however, only about one-third expressed some agreement with the statement that juveniles are willing to change (36%).

Despite the fact that most of the respondents felt that there should be a level of connection between staff and wards, around half (51%) still thought that institutions should be run using a military regime, and around one in three thought that youth are coddled while detained (39%) and that if the institution was made less comfortable (33%), the youth would be less likely to recidivate. Only three respondents (4%) thought youth currently in custody were treated poorly. While it is possible that individuals interpreted what a military regime is like differently, it is important to note that previous research has shown that programs based on the boot camp model have not been effective in reducing delinquency (Sherman, et al., 1997).



Table 6.1 Staff Opinions

Staff should . . .

Provide a set of written rules to avoid later problems. 83%

Have compassion. 75%

Act the way they want wards to act. 72%

Explain the reason for an order. 65%

Take an interest in wards. 61%

Not use “hands on” methods. 59%

Work hard to earn trust. 54%

Not get too “close” to wards. 53%

Keep conversations short and businesslike. 32%

Use “hands-on” methods. 15%

Institutions . . .

Are necessary for some youth. 95%

Should be run like a military regime. 51%

Should be less comfortable. 33%

Are the only way to handle delinquent minority youth. 18%

Rehabilitation/treatment programs . . .

Should be left to mental health professionals. 18%

Should only be in the community. 12%

Are a waste of time and money. 8%

Juveniles in custody . . .

Need someone to believe in them. 83%

Need intervention and treatment. 80%

Are limited by their family situation. 68%

Will take advantage of staff if treated leniently. 59%

Are a product of their environment. 59%

Have negative attitudes. 53%

Should not be completely trusted. 48%

Are coddled when detained. 39%

Are sometimes placed inappropriately there. 38%

Are willing to change. 36%

Are treated poorly. 4%

TOTAL 74 - 76


SOURCE: General Staff Surveys for PEACE Study, SANDAG



IN-DEPTH STAFF SURVEY Survey Description The purpose of the in-depth survey was to obtain detailed input from staff regarding their perceptions, experiences, and opinions on a variety of topics: training and experience, work environment and staff morale, needs of wards and services provided, and predictors of success through both closed- and open-ended questions. Due to the length (nine pages), it was impractical to request that all staff complete the questionnaire. Therefore, the Probation Department provided a list of JRF and Camp Barrett staff members to solicit for input. Sample Description In-depth surveys were mailed to a total of 30 individuals: 17 JRF staff members, 14 of whom replied with finished surveys (an 82% response rate); and 13 personnel at Camp Barrett, 10 of whom replied (a 77% response rate). While the general staff survey was completely anonymous, information about the role each person filled at the institution was included during the process of compiling the list of staff to complete the in-depth survey. Probation staff comprised the largest proportion of the 24 individuals completing the in-depth survey. The directors at both facilities completed the survey, as well as supervisors, deputy probation officers, correctional probation officers, counselors, nurses, teachers, and administrative staff. This information was not available for one respondent because the survey was returned with a duplicate identification number, and the responses were clearly from a different person. This survey was maintained in the sample in order to not lose valuable input. In terms of their responsibilities and prior experience, the majority (87%) of in-depth survey respondents worked inside the institution, with only three probation officers working outside the facility (i.e., those assigned to the Breaking Cycles program for wards at JRF). Two individuals had never worked inside a probation institution because they provided services in the community through the Breaking Cycles program. Survey Results

Experience and Training Staff reported having a great deal of prior experience, with a median of 8.13 years working with delinquent youth for JRF staff (SD = 6.59, range 4.92 to 27.83) and 6.71 years for employees at Camp Barrett (SD = 1.60, range 4.58 to 9.50). Similarly, the educational background of these respondents included at least some college, with 79 percent possessing a degree, primarily in the social science fields (e.g., criminal justice, psychology, and sociology) (not shown). Level of preparation for the work was the first area explored through the survey. All staff felt satisfactorily prepared for working with incarcerated youth, with over half (58%) feeling very well prepared (a rating of one on a five-point, ordinal scale). On-the-job-training was most frequently



cited as the best preparation for working with the target population, followed by life experience and course work (not shown). With respect to training, staff members were asked if they had received the types of training listed in Table 6.2. At least half of the respondents had received training in every area mentioned on the survey. For those receiving training in each area, there were two follow-up questions. One focused on how well the training assisted in working with incarcerated youth using a five-point, ordinal scale (with 1 signifying “very well” and 5 indicating “very poorly”). Overall, each type of training was rated as “helpful,” with about two-thirds or more giving combined ratings of “helpful” or “very helpful,” ranging from 63 percent viewing substance abuse training as helpful to 87 percent feeling the same way about training on mental illness (Table 6.2). The only exception to this high helpfulness rating was for the San Diego Regional Resiliency Checkup (SDRRC). Only half (50%) of the staff members surveyed viewed the SDRRC as helpful. This opinion suggests that completing the SDRRC form may not be directly applicable to providing services to youth in custody.

Table 6.2 Training Received and Perceived as Helpful

Program Received Helpful Rating

Substance abuse 83% 63%

Confidentiality/Criminal Offender Records Information (CORI) 78% 73%

Child/adolescent development 70% 67%

Group facilitation 70% 80%

Mental illness 67% 87%

Gender issues 65% 77%

San Diego Regional Resiliency Checkup (SDRRC) 50% 50%

TOTAL 22-24 10-19


SOURCE: In-depth Staff Survey for PEACE Study, SANDAG

The other follow-up question asked respondents to specify where the training was received (through Probation, an outside organization, or both). This training setting varied by topic (Table 6.3). For example, 88 percent of the training in child/adolescent development was provided by outside agencies, while instruction regarding confidentiality and offender records information was conducted primarily by Probation (88%). Over one-third (38%) of the respondents indicated that they could benefit from additional training, particularly in the area of mental health/illness (not shown).



Table 6.3 Providers of Training

Program Probation Outside Both

Substance abuse 50% 40% 10%

Confidentiality/Criminal Offender Records Information (CORI) 88% 6% 6%

Child/adolescent development 13% 88% 0%

Group facilitation 31% 69% 0%

Mental illness 31% 56% 13%

Gender issues 33% 60% 7%

San Diego Regional Resiliency Checkup (SDRRC) 82% 18% 0%

TOTAL 11-20

NOTE: Cases with missing information are not included. Percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding.


Work Environment Several questions on the in-depth survey addressed issues related to the work environment and morale, including workload, environmental conditions, recognition and communication, and burnout. Workload is one area that can impact staff morale. However, work at the facility generally does not involve a specific caseload. That is, 83 percent said that their position did not involve a caseload. Of those with a caseload (four individuals), most (three) believed that it was too large. Another question regarding workload asked about overtime. A majority of staff (83%) work overtime, though it is rarely mandatory. Only one-quarter noted that mandatory overtime had recently occurred (5 respondents), and these staff indicated a dislike for this requirement (not shown). Environmental conditions (i.e., safety, cleanliness of facility, as well as food and recreation for wards) influence staff moral as well. When asked directly, almost all (88%) staff members feel safe. The need for more staff and training was shared as suggestions to improve safety (four individuals at Camp Barrett) and training (not shown). Questions regarding facility cleanliness, as well as provision of food and recreation for wards were asked separately for each facility. Around two-thirds of the staff gave positive ratings regarding the cleanliness of the facilities; however, a greater percentage of JRF staff gave positive ratings to the food, while Camp Barrett staff was more likely to share positive feelings for juvenile recreation activities (Table 6.4). Respondents were asked to rate each statement on a five-point, ordinal scale with one indicating “very good” and five indicating “very poor.” Table 6.4 presents the proportions of combined responses of “good” and “very good.” Overall, staff members rated the cleanliness of JRF as “good” or “very good” (64%). This same measure for Camp Barrett was 70 percent. Similarly, food and recreation for wards were rated as “good” or “very good” at both institutions (71% and 64%, respectively, for JRF and 50% and 80%, respectively, for Camp Barrett).



Staff morale is high but burnout remains an issue.

Table 6.4 Environmental Conditions

JRF Camp Barrett

Cleanliness 64% 70%

Food for wards 71% 50%

Recreation for wards 64% 80%

TOTAL 14 10


Overall, staffing resources at JRF were rated as adequate (71% of JRF staff surveyed (10 of the 14 respondents) indicated that staffing levels were sufficient), but all ten respondents from Camp Barrett indicated a need for more staff. Respondents also were solicited for ideas regarding ways to help them do their job more effectively. Over half (58%) of facility staff members believe that there are things other than training and appreciation that could help them do their jobs more effectively. At Camp Barrett, these ideas reiterated the overwhelming need expressed for more staff. In addition, staff members at both facilities were interested in more programs for wards (not shown). Morale can also be impacted by the level of appreciation shown by supervisors and co-workers. The majority of staff members (75%) reported feeling appreciated in the work they do. Verbal recognition was the most common form of approval (94%), followed by written appreciation (76%), and flexibility in meeting personal needs (53%). It seems you can never have enough verbal commendation, as more verbal recognition was one suggestion from four respondents for ways management could make staff feel more appreciated. Further, individuals at both facilities reported credit being given for work completed, with just two people at Camp Barrett reporting that this did not occur (not shown). Communication between administrators and staff potentially influences morale, as well. Survey responses indicate that communication with administrators is open, with all but two respondents rating administrators as at least somewhat open (not shown). These findings suggest that the working environment is positive at the facilities; however, despite this positive climate, burnout is common with about half (54%) experiencing this problem. These 13 respondents used the following strategies to combat burnout: utilizing personal outlets, requesting time off, setting boundaries, taking advantage of staff retreats and luncheons, and utilizing training opportunities. The primary suggestion for ways management can help alleviate burnout was to allocate more staff (6 respondents, primarily from Camp Barrett) (not shown).



Perception of Youth The in-depth survey asked respondents to rate a series of statements as they related to success for incarcerated juveniles on a three-point, ordinal scale. The statements were adapted from the SDRRC tool used to assess risk and resiliency of all youth in contact with the Probation Department (previously described in detail in Chapter 2). Table 6.5 shows the proportion of respondents specifying that the item was “very predictive” of success in descending order of frequency. Two-thirds or more of the staff members completing the in-depth survey agreed that the following factors are very predictive of success for delinquents: adequate supervision and control by guardians/parents (79%), clean and sober living (79%), ability to make friends with positive peers (71%), lack of parental abuse and neglect (71%), managing peer pressure (67%), and connection with an adult role model (67%). These six predictors of success are related to three of the six domains on the SDRRC (family, substance use, and peers). Among the SDRRC data analyzed for this report (presented in Chapters 3 and 4), these three domains had the highest proportion of protective factors, suggesting strengths upon which staff interacting with these individuals can build, particularly with respect to the relationships with family members and love felt from parents, as well as parental modeling of healthy moderation (as discussed in Chapter 3). To further explore the population served in JRF and Camp Barrett, respondents to the in-depth survey were asked if the detained population of juveniles has changed since they began working with this population. Almost three-quarters (71%) felt that it had and when asked how, the most common observation included that these youth have a higher level of criminal involvement, more mental health issues, and more behavioral problems (not shown).

Knowledge and Perception of Programs Table 6.6 shows how familiar respondents to the in-depth survey were with local, in-custody programs for youth, as well as their ratings of the effectiveness of these programs. A screening question asked if the respondent was familiar with the purpose of each program prior to requesting a rating of the effectiveness. Effectiveness ratings were based on a five-point ordinal scale with one indicating “very effective” and five “very ineffective.” The effectiveness rating on Table 6.6 represents the proportion giving a rating “effective” or “very effective” to each program in reducing delinquency also is presented. As Table 6.6 shows, work readiness was rated as effective by each of the individuals who were familiar with it. Supporting this need for work preparation programs, one respondent said, “In my experience, the recidivism rate is such because we send our boys back into the same situation they left. If we don’t have a job or after-school program waiting for them upon their release, they will slip right back into old habits.” Three-quarters or more rated the following as effective: GED programs (95%), literacy (89%), dorm orientation (88%), first aid/CPR (85%), individual counseling (84%), Fire Academy Regional Occupational Program (83%), Teen Relationship Violence (82%), Life Skills (80%), Career Guidance (76%), and Conflict Management (75%). It is important to note that not all programs are offered in each facility; therefore, it is not expected that all staff would be familiar with them. Appendix Table A4 displays these results according to the domain assessed through the SDRRC.



Table 6.5

Staff Perceived Predictors of Success

Adequate supervision and control by guardian(s)/parent(s) 79%

Clean and sober 79%

Ability to make friends with positive peers 71%

Lack of parental abuse and neglect 71%

Effectively manages peer pressure 67%

Connected to an adult role model 67%

Lack of criminal influence within the family 63%

Participates in family activities 58%

Stable home without chaos or turmoil 58%

Educational aspirations 54%

Involved in pro-social activities in community 54%

Good school attendance 50%

Good academic performance 46%

Manages stress well 46%

Parental modeling of moderation 46%

Lack of family violence 46%

Attachment to guardian(s)/parent(s) 43%

Stable residence history 43%

Neighborhood low in crime 42%

Marital accord/harmony with parents/guardians 42%

Physically and mentally healthy guardian(s)/parent(s) 33%

Appropriate sexual behavior 33%

Participates in a faith community 21%

Financial stability of parent(s)/guardian(s) 13%

TOTAL 23-24


SOURCE: In-depth Staff Surveys for PEACE Study and SANDAG



One in three staff feel juveniles have unmet needs.

Table 6.6 Staff Familiarity with Programs and Perception of Effectiveness

Familiar Effective Rating

Conflict Management 96% 75%

General Educational Development (GED) 92% 95%

Individual Counseling 91% 84%

Work Crews 91% 70%

Criminal Conduct and Substance Abuse Treatment Classes 87% 58%

Literacy Program 87% 89%

Dorm Orientation 81% 88%

Career Guidance 79% 76%

Life Skills Classes 74% 80%

Aggression Replacement Training (ART) 70% 73%

Thinking for a Change 70% 40%

First Aid/Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) 68% 85%

Character Counts 67% 53%

Phoenix House Therapeutic Community Program 67% 62%

Fire Academy Regional Occupational Program 65% 83%

Tattoo Removal 61% 62%

Work Readiness Program 61% 100%

Short-Term Offender Program (STOP) 57% 45%

Teen Relationship Violence Program 52% 82%

Drug Court 48% 67%

McAlister Institute of Treatment and Education (MITE) 48% 67%

Parenting Classes 48% 56%

Family Counseling 43% 50%

Positive Peer Leadership Program 33% 67%

TOTAL 21-24 6-20

SOURCE: In-depth Staff Surveys for PEACE Study, SANDAG

Staff members were solicited for input on the in-depth survey regarding the needs of detained youth through an open-ended question. Over one-third (38%) felt that juveniles in local custody have needs unmet through existing programs, primarily related to substance abuse, mental health, and work experience. They also were asked to specify what each facility does best with respect to wards. For JRF, the therapeutic community (e.g., Phoenix House) and substance abuse treatment, in general, were mentioned most often as best. Aggression Replacement Training (ART) and work readiness were listed as best most often for Camp Barrett (not shown).



SUMMARY As part of Project III, two surveys were distributed to staff at both JRF and Camp Barrett. The results presented in this chapter provide an insight into staff attitudes and opinions at the time the surveys were administered. Their views are of interest particularly because the perspective of staff can influence how they interact with youth and how effectively they adhere to program guidelines for the services they provide to youth. Additionally, any future institutional programmatic and policy changes have a greater likelihood of success if they are aligned with staff perception of need. Overall, input from staff at JRF and Camp Barrett on these staff surveys indicate that work environment and staff morale are positive at the facilities, though burnout still exists for about half of the respondents. The main suggestion for management to help with this situation is greater staff allocation, though this problem of staffing constraints applied primarily to Camp Barrett. Staff members seem to view their role in managing the detained population of youth as focusing on communication rather than using forceful tactics to maintain cooperation. With respect to programs effectively addressing the needs of wards, staff opinion indicates that work readiness is critical to reducing delinquency among this population. Ratings of statements regarding youth behavior highlight the necessity of incarceration for some youth, as well as the importance of addressing needs. According to staff, predictors of success focus on parental supervision and abstinence from substance use. A relatively high proportion of youth were assessed with protective factors in the area of family and substance use, particularly with respect to relationships with family members, love felt from parents, and parental modeling of moderation, suggesting strengths upon which staff can build when working with these individuals. Perceived areas of unmet need in the facility include substance abuse, mental health, and work experience. Since these surveys were administered during the beginning of the evaluation, these perceptions do not reflect any programmatic changes made since that time.

CHAPTER 7 PROMISING PROGRAMS



INTRODUCTION This chapter reviews the prominent sources for evidence-based programs and other highly visible programs that have been recognized by experts in the field of juvenile delinquency. The purpose of this chapter is to build on prior reports’ review of effective practices across the United States and provide examples of programs demonstrating positive effects that the San Diego County Probation Department may want to further investigate. Described in this chapter are interventions touted in the literature as effective, as well as programs already being implemented locally. Also discussed are programs that have been reviewed, but noted as inadequate, in order to determine those programs and practices that are not useful in rehabilitating juveniles. Specifically, institutional programs are the primary focus, though non-institutional programs also are included when particularly relevant to the target population (youth under the age of 25). The areas of interest include: academics, aftercare, aggression reduction, criminality, detention reform, family-focused interventions, mental health treatment, re-entry, substance use, use of force, and work readiness. Appendix Table A5 outlines the setting, target population, duration, and other details for the programs discussed in this chapter.

STANDARDS FOR EFFECTIVE PRACTICES There is prominent research developed by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence (CSPV) that identifies both effective and ineffective violence prevention programs, namely the Blueprints for Violence Prevention (Blueprints) and Youth Violence: A Report of the Surgeon General. Both the Blueprints and the Surgeon General’s report were used as guidelines for developing the rating system used in this evaluation. According to these sources, the three minimum standards for programs to be identified as effective include a rigorous experimental design, evidence of significant deterrent effects, and replication of these deterrent effects at multiple sites (Youth Violence: A Report of the Surgeon General, 2001). Under the “effective” category are programs that are “model” and “promising.” Those shown not to work are categorized as “ineffective.” The difference between model and promising programs is that a promising program does not have to meet the criteria of sustained positive effects demonstrated through a rigorous research design and multiple site replications. The Blueprints model specifies that the one criterion that must be met for the program to be noted as a promising program is evidence of deterrence with a strong research design. Using this information as a starting point, another category was added to document programs not meeting the standards of evidence-based programs due to lack of evaluation research, but noted by experts to be “exemplary.” This result is the following rating system.

Proven through rigorous evaluation research design (scientific study using random assignment) and positive outcomes persist one year or longer after baseline;

Evaluated, but without a rigorous research design;

Not evaluated, but anecdotal evidence found positive outcomes; and

Outcomes show program to not be completely adequate.



For ease of review, each program is listed by service category (e.g., academic assistance, mental health, substance abuse) with a brief program description, including the target population, the rating, and, when available, the justification for the rating according to experts.

OVERALL ELEMENTS CONSIDERED BEST PRACTICES Before describing specific programs that are promising or proven, the general program elements shown in the literature to reduce delinquency across interventions are presented. This information is valuable to keep in mind when designing programs for delinquent youth. Meta-analysis, a statistical technique examining the impact of multiple programs on recidivism, highlighted the following overall factors as associated with improved outcomes:

larger amounts of meaningful contact between program participants and staff (i.e., treatment integrity);

longer duration of treatment/service delivery (dosage);

cognitive-behavioral methods with reinforcements to modify overt behavior that examine the relationship between internal thought processes (cognitive) and external behaviors (behavioral);

structured interventions involving multiple treatment components that are skill-oriented (i.e., development of social, academic, and employment skills);

location in the community rather than institutional settings;

focus on employment skills (i.e., skills needed to find and keep a job) rather than vocational skills (i.e., skills less related to obtaining employment);

target more serious offenders (i.e., the risk principle of reserving the most intensive treatment and intervention programs for offenders at high risk for re-offending) based on objective and standardized measures predicting offender risk in order to direct length of programming and supervision;

service delivery based on offender needs;

monitor program delivery to ensure intended treatment received; and

provision of treatment by mental health personal rather than juvenile justice staff (Lowenkamp, Latessa, & Holsinger, 2006; Lipsey & Wilson, 1998; Sherman, et al., 1997; Lipsey, 1992a; Lipsey, 1992b).



DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAMS Academics Research has determined that poor academic performance can be a pathway to future delinquency (Maguin & Loeber, 1996), as well as a significant risk factor for committing serious and/or violent offenses (Catalano, Loeber, & McKinney, 1999). According to a qualitative analysis reported in the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) Model Programs Guide, programs that successfully address this connection between academic performance and behavior share five common features:

high expectations for youth, program, and staff;

personalized attention;

innovative structure and organization (e.g., flexible hours, team teaching, summer programming, after school programming, research-based programming)

experiential learning (e.g., internships); and

long-term support. More specifically, the different learning style of delinquent youth (i.e., cognitive factors) has been found to contribute to educational failure (Sheridan & Steele-Dadzie, 2005). This research asserts that educational interventions should be based on intellectual strengths and connected to the experiences of students through cooperative learning (i.e., peer interaction, cooperation, and communication) with hands-on activities in small classes. Below are examples of programs that have been upheld as valuable in addressing academic skills and performance of at-risk youth and their families. Although these prevention programs do not necessarily target detained youth, based on a review of these programs’ successes, it seems they could possibly be adapted to incarcerated youth, thus warranting inclusion in this chapter (OJJDP, 2006).

General Academic Skills

Boys and Girls Clubs of America After-School Program

In 1996, the Boys and Girls Club of America (BGCA) implemented an after-school program targeting low-income youth living in public housing. Educational activities included leisure reading, essay writing, homework assistance, and educational games. Using a non-randomized comparison design, the evaluation found that between pre- and post-tests (over an 18-month period), youth in the program made statistically significant gains in their average grades in core academic classes, as well as school attendance rates (OJJDP, 2006). The Juvenile Ranch Facility’s (JRF) reading clinic includes some similar elements (e.g., leisure reading and letter writing). Over half of the JRF sample participated in the reading clinic at least once during their commitment. This program is not offered at Camp Barrett.



Center for Alternative Sentencing and Employment Services Committee on

Court-Involved Students

Educational engagement and achievement are protective factors against delinquency (Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, 2004). This re-entry program focuses solely on education through two programs in New York City. The School Connection Center ensures that educational goals are met by youth released from custody through collaboration between juvenile justice staff and educational professionals. Educational assessments, transfer of academic records, and expedited enrollment in community schools are the services provided. The other program, Community Prep High School, is a transitional program designed to give youth the skills needed to successfully re-enter community schools. There is a focus on building academic and social skills, and rolling admissions allow for entry throughout the year. Leadership opportunities are provided through student government. Girls-only activities ensure that the program is gender-responsive. Case management and individual counseling also is provided. Preliminary data show increased school attendance and educational engagement (Skowyra & Cocozza, 2006).

Literacy Lindamood-Bell Learning Processes

In order to address the reading deficits of incarcerated youth in San Diego County, a coalition of education and juvenile justice experts decided to partner with the Lindamood-Bell Learning Processes program. Between 2002 and 2004, Lindamood-Bell instruction methods were implemented at San Diego County’s JRF and Camp Barrett to assist incarcerated youth in developing their language ability. This program focused on developing the cognitive processes necessary for reading, spelling, language comprehension, and critical thinking. Testing was conducted to identify an individual’s specific problem area, and a curriculum was designed around the test results. Youth at the two detention facilities received up to three hours of daily instruction, five days per week, for eight to ten weeks from trained juvenile corrections staff and Lindamood-Bell clinicians.

A two-year evaluation of the program at both facilities using a 3:1 randomized assignment (198 treatment and 52 comparison group clients) found that youth who participated in the program had statistically significant improvement in test scores between intake and exit than the comparison group, as well as fewer contacts with the justice system up to one year after exit (Burke, Howard, & Evangelou, 2005). Literacy programming in each facility still utilizes the Lindamood-Bell model; however, Lindamood-Bell clinicians are no longer involved. Periodic program audits are suggested to ensure that program integrity continues in order to produce positive outcomes.



Aftercare The transition from an intervention or treatment program to the community can be critical for success (e.g., the Coalition for Juvenile Justice (2000) noted the key role of aftercare for Youth Villages, a program utilizing the Multi-Systemic Therapy approach). As a result, many of the programs discussed in this chapter include an aftercare component. This section highlights one program that is not part of a larger treatment program.

Intensive Aftercare Program

The promising influence of aftercare has been cited in the literature (Sherman, et al., 1997). Although a five-year evaluation of the Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP) in three jurisdictions sponsored by OJJDP did not reveal definitive outcomes (Wiebush, Wagner, McNulty, Wang, & Le, 2005), it is mentioned here because small samples may be responsible. That is, the program still is considered promising anecdotally because the program elements are consistent with those highlighted by Lipsey as critical for success:1

small caseloads facilitate more meaningful contact between participants and program staff;

service provision from incarceration to transition to aftercare provides a longer duration of treatment/service delivery;

intensive supervision, multiple control mechanisms, and a system of graduated rewards and sanctions are used to respond to clearly identified overt behavior; and

the multiple treatment services are provided through community-based agencies, as well as transition facilities, furloughs, and other programs to facilitate community re-entry.

Aggression Reduction Aggression Replacement Training

The Aggression Replacement Training (ART) program (previously described in Chapter 1) has been used in various systems, including education, mental health, and delinquency, and at least four formal evaluations involving treatment and control groups have been conducted to study its efficacy. Blueprints rated ART as an effective program based on these studies, revealing that it improved an individual’s pro-social skills and level of empathy, reduced recidivism, and lowered the frequency and intensity of acting-out behaviors and impulsivity while in detention. However, the program did not demonstrate a positive effect on violent and anti-social behavior one year or longer after baseline (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2006). Trained therapists from a community-based agency provide ART at Camp Barrett, while a modified version is delivered by probation staff at JRF.

1 See the previous summary in this chapter under “Overall Elements Considered Best Practices” of Lipsey’s criteria.



Criminality Capital and Serious Violent Offender Treatment Program

Formerly the Capital Offenders Program (focusing exclusively on youth committing homicide), this structured, 24-week treatment program (designed by staff at the Texas Youth Commission’s Giddings State School in 1988) uses group psychotherapy with violent offenders to promote verbal expression of feelings, empathy for victims, and sense of personal responsibility, while reducing feelings of hostility and aggression. Social learning and cognitive-behavioral techniques also are used. Reenactment and role playing incorporates the perspective of the victim to help participants understand what makes them act aggressively and identify ways to cope with the feelings that trigger violence. Evaluations of the program by the Texas Youth Commission have shown improvements in both personality measures and recidivism over one year, though this positive change has not been sustained long-term (i.e., three years) (Texas Youth Commission, 2007; Coalition for Juvenile Justice, 2000; Howell, 1995).

Reasoning and Rehabilitation

Applicable to institutional and community settings, this program focuses on self-control, interpersonal problem solving, social perspectives, and pro-social attitudes during 35 sessions conducted over two to three months in small groups (6 to 8 participants). A 15-session edition was developed specifically for adults because long-term interventions can strain motivation, resulting in high attrition. The program can be tailored according to age group. Two true experimental designs in Canada found positive results in recidivism rates, though the results in an additional study were not statistically significant (Milkman & Wanberg, 2007). Studies of the effectiveness of this program for juveniles have been inconclusive (Mitchell & Palmer, 2004; Pullen, 1996); therefore, this program is rated with two rather than three stars.


Introduced by the National Institute of Corrections in 1997, this program, implemented at Camp Barrett (as described in Chapter 1), integrates cognitive restructuring, social skills, and problem solving for both adults and juveniles. The program begins with instruction in an introspective process for examining ways of thinking and personal feelings, beliefs, values, and attitudes. Training in social skills is designed to redirect offenders away from anti-social behavior. Newly developed skills are practiced through role playing. Application of skills in daily life is facilitated through written homework assignments and input from a person who knows the participant well (e.g., a family member). Internal motivation to avoid criminal behavior is cultivated through cognitive restructuring. Significant reductions in recidivism have been found (Milkman & Wanberg, 2007).



Detention Reform: General San Diego County juvenile justice professionals can glean from the experiences of other U.S. jurisdictions that have overcome obstacles in the creation and implementation of successful detention reforms. One of the more noteworthy examples is Broward County (South Florida), which began its reform efforts in the late 1980s and was a precursor to the 1993 Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI) funded by the Annie E. Casey Foundation. The JDAI designers believed that jurisdictions would reduce their juvenile detention populations without jeopardizing public safety by assessing the most high-risk juveniles for detention and providing alternative sanctions and housing options for low- to medium-risk youth (Lublow & Barron, 2000). The JDAI initially funded five counties to implement juvenile detention reform, and one of the three that successfully completed its implementation phase was Multnomah County Oregon (the other two were Sacramento, California, and Cook County, Illinois). Details of the reform efforts by Multnomah were available for review and are described below.

Multnomah County

In 1993, Multnomah County took on the JDAI’s challenge to reduce its juvenile incarceration rates, and between 1995 and 2000, the daily juvenile detention population dropped by almost half (60 juveniles held in custody versus 33). The county utilized the expertise of Dr. William Feyerherm, a professor at Portland State University, who offered a data-driven approach to the reform effort, especially in regard to the “detention gap” between white and minority youth. Having access to hard data allowed the county to base its reform strategies on the reality of the problem rather than anecdotal information (Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 2002).

First, Multnomah County created a network of community policing that incorporated the JDAI reform efforts into officer training and developed opportunities for police officers to have more frequent contact with juvenile offenders. As a result, a greater number of youth were diverted from the traditional juvenile justice system.

In addition, realistic alternatives were identified for diverting probation violators away from detention. The county contracted with local agencies to provide housing alternatives, including shelters, foster homes, home supervision, and day reporting centers. These services were located in communities where a majority of detained youth resided, especially in communities with a large percentage of minorities. Implementation of these sanctions was guided as follows: 1) law enforcement officers were directed to choose only those sanctions that were within a previously determined range; 2) community supervision staff members were required to try alternative sanctions before imposing detention; and 3) any order to detain a probation violator needed to have the approval of a supervisor and an alternative placement committee.

Further, Multnomah created a risk assessment instrument (RAI) to ensure that detention was ordered effectively and appropriately for the right youth and was not biased against minority youth. The county spent a year creating the RAI and piloted it in 1995. An



assessment team reviewed all detained youths’ assessment scores, case status, and eligibility for community sanctions. In addition, the team’s decisions were monitored on a daily basis to avoid staff bias and error. This information was used for program implementation. No outcome data are available; however, the reduction in youth detained provides anecdotal evidence that this program may be effective.

Detention Reform: Risk Assessment Guided Detention Decisions Intensive Protective Supervision Project

A program worth noting because of its implementation with a similar target population is the Intensive Protective Supervision Project (IPSP). This intervention is an intensive supervision program (ISP), serving youth under 16 years of age who are status offenders, and provides high levels of probation supervision. This high level of supervision for low-level offenders is not effective. As the Surgeon General’s report notes, “This program has been shown to have greater deterrent effects on referrals to juvenile court than standard protective supervision does.” However, this program has been removed from the Blueprints list of promising programs due to insufficient rigorous evaluation research that demonstrates deterrence. Secondly, the research that has been conducted has shown variable results. Specifically, several studies of ISP have shown a rise in recidivism as a result of increased supervision, while others have shown a decrease (Sherman, et al., 1997). Often with increased supervision, there is a greater detection of criminal and probation violations. If these programs group youth heavily involved in delinquency with lower-level offenders, the end result could be a “crime school” where the more serious delinquents teach those new to the juvenile justice system how to be a criminal.

Detention Reform: Community Justice Small Community-Based Facilities Program Model

The Missouri Division of Youth Services has been recognized for constructing youth institutions with a low-bed capacity and is referred to as the Missouri Model. Using a small community-based facility approach, this model entails reserving these facilities for violent and serious juvenile offenders and using other placement options for less serious offenders. Those youth that are committed to the smaller facilities also receive individualized, comprehensive services to address their needs and risk factors. Missouri’s evaluation of their small, community-based facilities shows a recidivism rate of eight percent based on re-arrest and return to custody (Missouri Department of Social Services, 2004). However, caution should be taken as there are no data to support that this rate will be sustained, since only recidivism for the current year is reviewed, omitting youth from prior years in analysis. Further, Missouri’s evaluation of the model did not include a rigorous research design, but rather is based only on the recidivism of those in the facilities, thus lacking a comparison group. However, benefits of these types of facilities have been noted by Zavlek (2005), including: 1) keeping youth connected to their community; 2) targeting sanctions to the needs of youth; 3) saving funds in the areas of



facility operations, reduced recidivism, and facility construction; and 4) improving the continuum of services. Currently, there is no external evaluation of the Missouri Model.

Family Focused Interventions Brief Strategic Family Therapy

Brief Strategic Family Therapy (BSFT) is a short-term intervention targeting children and youth (6- to 17-year-olds) through family systems therapy, home visits, parent education, parenting skills training, and task-oriented family education. The goal is to change maladaptive interactions that contribute to delinquency and other behavioral issues. Relationships within the family are considered, as well as relationships with other important systems within the community (e.g., school, peers). The focus is on patterns of interaction in the present, rather than the content of the interaction or past behavior. The program has been evaluated and replicated repeatedly using randomized research designs, revealing significant reductions in behavioral problems, substance use, and association with negative peers. For example, at termination, there was a 42 percent improvement in conduct problems; marijuana use dropped 75 percent; and association with anti-social peers decreased 58 percent (Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, 2004; National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2003; Robbins & Szapocznik, 2000).

One specific example of BSFT is Family Intervention Specialists (FIS) in Georgia. This Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) model program serves youth 8 to 17 years of age with a known or suspected mental health or substance abuse problem and prior attempts at treatment. These youth are at risk of out-of-home placement or are currently in out-of-home placement with upcoming reunification. Upon referral to the program from probation or the courts, the Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument Version 2 (MAYSI-2), described later in this chapter, and the Child and

Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale (CAFAS) are administered to examine mental health issues, as well as the Mauldin Pattern assessment to examine the healthiness and strengths of the youth and family at the beginning and end of program participation. Focused interventions are designed to improve problematic family relations and skill building therapies in order to reduce risk factors. Parenting skills training, tutoring, and anger management classes are provided. The program typically lasts three to four months, with aftercare available as needed. Follow-up phone calls are made at three, six, and nine months following program completion using a standardized outcome protocol to track family functioning (Skowyra & Cocozza, 2006).


Functional Family Therapy (FFT) uses flexible service delivery to provide diverse interventions to delinquent youth ages 11 to 18 years old and their families. The youth and families receive individual and family therapy and other services that meet their needs. These needs are determined through assessments conducted by a counselor. The strengths of the program are in serving the family and using diverse services to address the family’s specific needs. The delivery of the program occurs in homes, clinics, juvenile court,



and community re-entry from institutional placement. This short-term program provides direct services for up to 30 hours across the duration of participation. Evaluations have found that recidivism can be reduced up to 25 to 30 percent for clients, and it can be used as an intervention or prevention program. The program is best realized with families where intervention begins because of a delinquent youth, but service delivery also prevents siblings from entering the juvenile justice system (Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, 2006; Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2006). Blueprints describes this program as “effectively treating adolescents with Conduct Disorder, Oppositional Defiant Disorder, Disruptive Behavior Disorder, alcohol and other drug abuse disorders, and who are delinquent and/or violent.” Functional Family Parole (FFP) is modeled after FFT in an effort to help youth with mental health issues transition into the community following detention (i.e., aftercare) (Skowyra & Cocozza, 2006).

Family Solutions Program

The Family Solutions Program (FSP) in Georgia uses a multiple-family group intervention to reduce recidivism among first-time juvenile offenders and provide an alternative to institutional commitment. Parents and their children participate in a ten-session thera-peutic program that includes three phases of treatment, including building relationships, confronting resistance to treatment, and group involvement and growth. FSP uses multiple-family group intervention to help foster change in the families. This approach requires that the therapeutic sessions take place with a number of families attending, which offers the families opportunities to support each other and learn from each other. These multi-family sessions also provide a sense of community to the youth, allowing the group to share in the struggles and successes of each other’s lives. In order to successfully complete the program, both the youth and parents must complete nine of the ten sessions. The evaluation of this program was conducted using a convenience sample. The design compared FSP graduates with youth in regular supervision and with youth who dropped out of the program. The results of this study show that youth who graduated from FSP had a lower recidivism rate (20%) than youth assigned to regular probation supervision (37%) or FSP dropouts (55%) (Quinn & Van Dyke, 2004). At this time, this program has not been replicated elsewhere.


A program that is geared toward delinquent youth is Multi-Systemic Therapy (MST). The population served is chronic, violent, or substance abusing juvenile offenders ages 12 to 17 years old and at risk of out-of-home placement, including institutional placement to commitment programs. MST treatment is primarily family-focused, and treatment is provided within the home. By incorporating the family into treatment, the program expects to impact the youth’s surroundings by equipping parents to independently deal with their child’s emotional and behavioral issues (including mental health disorders) and encourage positive growth. In addition, the treatment model uses other components of the youth’s life, including individuals from school, social network, and neighborhood. The specific interventions are determined through assessments conducted by the therapist and



shared with the family. From these assessment results, the therapist creates a case plan to address the specific needs of the family. (Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, 2006; Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2006; Coalition for Juvenile Justice, 2000).

There have been multiple studies regarding the impact of MST showing positive results, such as “reductions of 25 to 70 percent in long-term rates of re-arrest, reductions of 4 to 6 percent in out-of-home placements, extensive improvements in family functioning, and decreased mental health problems for serious juvenile offenders” (Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, 2006). Specifically, relative to a comparison group of youth receiving usual treatment services, 42 percent of MST participants were re-arrested versus 62 of the comparison group. Self-report data confirm this finding. Long-term arrest rates have been measured almost 14 years after treatment with similar findings (i.e., significantly lower re-arrest and incarceration rates). Positive changes in substance use also have been found up to four years after treatment, with less frequent alcohol and other drug use among MST youth. Family functioning improved for MST participants, while those in the comparison group experienced deteriorated family functioning. Peer relationships improved for MST clients and remained the same for the comparison group (National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Practices, no date).

The San Diego County Probation Department, in partnership with the San Diego Unified School District, is currently using MST for the Title V program. SANDAG, who is conducting the evaluation of the local Title V program, recently released preliminary findings showing that the majority of youth receiving treatment had no subsequent contact with the juvenile justice system at the six-month follow-up. Of the youth who did have contact with the system, none had committed a violent offense, but rather a status or misdemeanor offense (Keaton, 2006).

In Onondaga County, New York, MST is used at four stages of the juvenile justice system: probation intake, detention, family court, and re-entry following detention. First, during the intake assessment, all cases at risk for out-of-home placement are considered for diversion into MST. Second, detention screening includes an option for diversion into MST, assuming family court approval, as well as agreement by the youth and family. Third, cases referred for dispositional hearings and at risk for out-of-home placement are considered for diversion to MST. Finally, MST receives the names of youth to be released from custody two weeks prior to discharge so immediate outreach with the family can start in preparation for the youth’s return home and the beginning of MST treatment (Skowyra & Cocozza, 2006).

Mental Health Treatment

The proportion of youth in the juvenile justice system with mental health issues is higher than the general population (Holman & Ziedenberg, 2006; Wasserman, Ko, & McReynolds, 2004). There are multiple opportunities throughout the juvenile justice system to address mental health issues youth may have (opportunities that could allow these individuals to eventually live productive lives). In the San Diego region, many of these points involve the



Probation Department. Though data collected for the current study do not include mental health assessments,2 conversations with Probation staff members indicate that this area is one of great need among locally detained youth. This section highlights promising programs related to mental health issues throughout the juvenile justice process in which the Probation Department is involved. For more ideas regarding ways to address mental health issues both pre- and post-adjudication, see Functional Family Therapy and Multi-Systemic Therapy under “Family-Focused Interventions.”

Assessment

Screening for mental health issues is the first step, followed by assessment for those presenting problems through the screening process. Since the likelihood of offending is related to prior traumatic events, this mental health screening should include traumatic stress, as well as other mental health issues (Ford, Chapman, Hawke, & Albert, 2007). According to Skowyra and Cocozza (2006), information gleaned from mental health screening and assessment should be combined with risk assessment information in order to determine the best intervention for the youth. The MAYSI-2 is a valid and reliable screening measure for juvenile delinquents (ages 12 to 17) and includes a trauma experiences scale. This instrument requires limited training and mental health expertise (Coalition for Juvenile Justice, 2000). The Voice Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children (V-DISC) is another reliable mental health assessment tool and has been extensively tested for assessment of youth ages 9 to 17 in juvenile justice settings. The self-administered format of the V-DISC using a computer and headphones is particularly well suited to juvenile justice settings because minimal staff support is required, scoring is immediate, and enhanced privacy increases disclosure of sensitive personal information (Wasserman, Ko, & McReynolds, 2004). While the MAYSI-2 takes less time than the V-DISC (less than 15 minutes versus at least one hour), the V-DISC provides a diagnosis (Center for the Promotion of Mental Health in Juvenile Justice, 2003). The MAYSI-2 is a good screening tool, followed by the V-DISC to diagnose all youth with mental health issues revealed through the MAYSI-2. The earlier in the juvenile justice process that this information is known, the more quickly appropriate services can be delivered to address mental health needs and reduce recidivism.

Bernalillo County Juvenile Detention Center

This detention center in Albuquerque, New Mexico has developed an intake process to identify youth with mental health disorders upon entry to the facility and divert them to a Medicaid-funded community mental health clinic nearby. The process occurs 24 hours a day. While the assessment is conducted, police officers wait until the youth’s placement has been determined. The mental health clinic provides evaluation and assessment, individual and group therapy, mediation management, substance abuse treatment, case management, and crisis management to detained youth, as well as those in the

2 At the time of this report, the Probation Department uses an internal questionnaire assessing risk of suicide

and other general screening issues upon intake to the Kearny Mesa and East Mesa Juvenile Detention Facilities. As of this report’s publication, implementation of the MASYI-2 has been under consideration.



community. Administrative data from the facility indicate a reduction in average daily population and length of stay. Fiscal savings and reduced staffing needs are diverted to the clinic (Skowyra & Cocozza, 2006). These measures do not focus on outcomes (e.g., recidivism); therefore, these findings are considered anecdotal, with the single star rating.

Brief Eclectic Therapy

In Brief Eclectic Therapy, meaning is sought through imagining traumatic events using an approach that integrates cognitive-behavioral, psycho-educational, and psycho-dynamic therapies. It was originally developed for police officers traumatized in the line of duty. There are five phases in Brief Eclectic Therapy: 1) clients identify the link between past trauma and current symptoms/behavior (psycho-education); 2) traumatic experience is slowly described in context of the entire day (reliving); 3) feelings are written to help process emotions (writing); 4) introspection regarding how lives have been impacted by trauma (meaning and integration); and 5) traumatic event is left behind and focus shits to the future (farewell ritual). This group treatment has been reportedly helpful to detained male youth suffering from post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (Ford, et al., 2007).


Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT) is cognitive-behavioral treatment that targets youth with mental disorders in a juvenile detention setting. DBT uses individual counseling and group skills training. The program also delivers training to families, detention staff, and case workers in order to help them facilitate the youth’s new behaviors. A study conducted by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy found lower felony recidivism in the DBT-treated group compared with the control group at the 12- and 36-month follow-up periods (2006). The long-term outcomes and rigorous evaluation design earns this program three stars, indicating that it a “proven” or “model” program. The fact that it is implemented with detained youth makes it of particular interest locally.

Emotionally Disturbed Treatment Program

This program, operated at the Corsicana Residential Treatment Center in Texas, begins with a 30-day evaluation period to confirm mental health needs of adjudicated youth. The nine-month program focuses on stabilizing the emotional disorder through a combination of medication, counseling, and behavioral therapy. The Texas Youth Commission’s (TYC) resocialization model also is a focus, which includes therapy, education, discipline training, and work. The program consists of daily school attendance, recreation, group counseling, and weekly individual counseling. When the emotional disorder has stabilized, detainees typically finish their sentence in a TYC facility; however, some youth complete their entire sentence in the Emotionally Disturbed Treatment Program and are released to the community. Recidivism data indicated that program participants have lower rates of re-arrest than youth in need of treatment receiving no services (Skowyra & Cocozza, 2006).




The Family Integrated Transitions (FIT) Project is a re-entry program in Seattle, Washington for youth with co-occurring mental health and substance abuse issues. Wards are identified upon entry to the detention facility to ensure that they meet the following criteria:

are between 11 and 17 years of age;

have a substance abuse issue;

have an Axis I disorder, are currently prescribed psychotropic medication, or have demonstrated suicidal behavior in the last six months;

have at least four months remaining on their sentence; and

reside in the service area.

Elements from four evidence-based treatment models were refined to address the needs of youth re-entering the community following detention: MST (previously described in this chapter), Motivational Enhancement Therapy (described later in this chapter), and Dialectical Behavior Therapy (previously described in this chapter), as well as relapse prevention, which has been shown to be an important element in evidence-based practices. Beginning two months prior to release and continuing for four to six months following discharge, FIT uses a strengths-based approach and relies on both family and community involvement; therefore, the services are provided in the youth’s home and community. Teams comprised of juvenile mental health specialists and substance abuse counselors serve from four to six families, 24 hours a day, seven days a week (Skowyra & Cocozza, 2006; Aos, 2004). Originally intended for youth serving time due to court orders, this program also has been applied to youth spending shorter periods in custody (e.g., detainees awaiting court). As part of an experimental research design relative to a comparison group, significantly fewer FIT participants re-offended 18 months following release from custody. Based on the cost-benefit analysis, $1 spent on FIT resulted in benefits worth $3.15 (Aos, 2004). Given the proportion of youth detained at JRF and Camp Barrett that re-offend within six months following release, this proven re-entry program may provide a way to improve these outcomes for youth with mental health issues.

Family Intervention Resources Services Team

This program targets first-time status offenders (middle school age) with mental health and substance abuse problems. Mental health status is determined through the Problem Oriented Screening Instrument (POSIT) by a court worker, who refers eligible cases to the Family Intervention Resources Services Team (FIRST). FIRST does not provide direct services. Case management is the primary function. The case manager interviews and meets with the family to begin the development of a service plan. Actual services are delivered through community-based agencies. The case manager reports progress to the court. When service plan goals are met, the case is closed as a success. Data from 1996 onward indicate a 75 percent success rate. Comparison to cases declining services reveals a three-fold-higher re-arrest rate (Skowyra & Cocozza, 2006).



Illinois Mental Health Juvenile Justice Initiative

Prompted by a study indicating that a large proportion of detained youth have serious mental illness, often coupled with substance abuse issues, this initiative uses liaisons to coordinate community-based services for incarcerated juveniles with a major affective disorder or psychotic disorder. The Childhood Severity of Psychiatric Illness (CSPI) is used to determine program eligibility. For those found to have severe mental illness, the liaison uses the Child and Adolescent Needs and Strengths-Mental Health Scale (CANS-MH) to develop a service plan with the youth and family, using a wraparound approach focusing on needs and strengths. This plan is presented to the court with the recommendation that the youth be served in the community rather than remaining in custody. When the judge releases the youth, the liaison links the family to services for six months. After this point, services provided through the linkages can continue without the assistance of the liaison. Outcome data indicate reduced recidivism, increased school attendance, improved parental participation, and lower emotional problems for program participants (Skowyra & Cocozza, 2006). This program may be helpful in reducing recidivism among wards released from JRF and Camp Barrett.

Integrated Co-Occurring Treatment Program

This program is specifically designed to address delinquents with co-occurring mental health and substance abuse issues. It is both a reintegration program for youth returning home from placement, as well as a diversion program for juvenile court referrals. Mental health and substance abuse status is determined through comprehensive screening and assessment using standardized instruments. To be eligible, youth must be diagnosed according to the DSM-IV criteria for substance abuse and dependency, as well as have documented mental illness (e.g., mood, psychotic, or anxiety-related disorders). The program has served 84 clients through an intensive, home-based model and a treatment stage approach that involves meeting primary presenting needs prior to proceeding to more complex issues. Services are delivered in the home, school, and community and are available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Though the sample is small and was not randomly selected, initial evaluation results are promising, with reduced recidivism and improved functioning (Skowyra & Cocozza, 2006).


Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care (MTFC) is a proven model that targets youth under 18 years of age with severe emotional disturbance (SED) and chronic delinquency who are at risk of incarceration. The model focuses on intensive treatment and supervision of the youth in all spheres of life (school, home, and community), creating clearly structured guidelines for behavior with timely consequences, positive reinforcement, and adult mentoring, as well as reducing contact with negative peer groups.

The main components of MTFC include: training with a strong emphasis on behavior management, supervision and support, and family services. These services are provided



through daily phone contact, home visits, and in-home therapy. Though a foster care program, the biological or adoptive family also is included in service provision.

Rigorous scientific studies with control groups have been conducted to evaluate the MTFC model and have shown it to be very effective in reducing (at 12-month follow-up):

future incarceration (60% fewer days than control group);

arrests;

runaway behavior (three times less often than control);

use of hard drugs; and

number of days between restrictive settings and community placement (Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, 2006; TFC Consultants, Inc., 2006; Coalition for Juvenile Justice, 2000).

Project Hope

Project Hope provides aftercare services following release from the Rhode Island Training School. Youth between 12 and 22 years of age diagnosed with a mental health (Axis I mental health disorder) or conduct disorder are eligible, which is about 80 percent of juvenile detainees at the Rhode Island Training School. Three to four months prior to release, project staff begin working with the youth in order to provide enough time to get to know the youth and family. Upon referral to the program, a strength-based assessment is conducted with youth and family. Prior to release, the service plan is developed as a collaborative effort between the youth, parent(s), clinical social worker, probation officer, and community officers. As needed, this team convenes to change or modify the plan. A case manager monitors progress for 9 to 12 months following discharge from the training school. Recidivism is lower for Project Hope participants compared to those discharged to other community-based programs (Skowyra & Cocozza, 2006).

Trauma Affect Regulation: A Guide for Education and Therapy

A specific area within mental health involves the impact of psychological trauma. Though the prevalence of trauma among youth in the juvenile justice system has not been systematically assessed, the use of mental health assessments in juvenile justice settings (e.g., MAYSI-2 that includes a traumatic experiences scale) has raised awareness regarding the potential impact trauma may have on juvenile justice success rates. This recent awareness has resulted in the initiation of programs to not only identify trauma among youth in juvenile justice settings, but also to provide appropriate services in order to address the related needs. For example, the Trauma Affect Regulation: A Guide for Education and Therapy (TARGET) model is being implemented in Connecticut and Florida, as well as in six sites across the nation through the National Child Traumatic Stress Network, containing over 50 sites. The model is a strength-based approach to enhance self-regulation capacity compromised by psychological trauma. Participants are taught to understand how trauma changes the body’s normal response to situations. Self-esteem is enhanced, as well as the ability to manage anger, impulsivity, grief, shame, and guilt. The projects in Connecticut, Florida, and six other sites across the United States involve training



personnel so that they are informed on trauma-related issues for youth within the juvenile justice system, revising policies and procedures to ensure that interventions are implemented with gender sensitivity and cultural competence, and implementing services using self-regulation skills taught in TARGET. Though no outcome data are currently available, a quasi-experimental design is under review for funding in Florida (Ford, et al., 2007).

Wraparound Milwaukee

Wraparound Milwaukee is a joint effort between the mental health department and human services, which includes probation. Youth in either the dependency or delinquency systems with serious emotional, behavioral, and mental health needs are referred by court order to the program. Initial screening is followed by assignment to a care coordinator who works with the youth and family for at least 14 hours per month in conjunction with the probation officer and family advocate. The purpose of the program is to build upon strengths and access services to address needs. Upon discharge, youth enrolled for at least one year exhibited improved behavior at school, home, and in the community. With respect to recidivism, repeated evaluations have shown decreased re-arrest rates up to three years following program release (Skowyra & Cocozza, 2006; Coalition for Juvenile Justice, 2000).

Re-Entry3 Adolescent Re-Entry Initiative

Though no impact data are available and program design information is scant, the Adolescent Re-Entry Initiative, operated by the Vera Institute of Justice in New York, was designed based on information from prior research. In light of high recidivism rates (about two-thirds return to the criminal justice system within three years), the Vera Institute conducted two studies to assess the challenges faced by youth (ages 16-18) released from custody. The Vera Institute found that the primary issues faced by these youth concerned finding employment, continuing or completing education, and reducing or stopping substance use. The Vera Institute is collaborating with local partners to make career training, employment, and substance abuse interventions accessible, bridging local gaps in services. Specifically, with respect to employment, the program strives to augment the focus on job placement by addressing long-term career and educational goals (Vera Institute of Justice, 2006).

3 For more ideas related to re-entry, also see Multi-Systemic Therapy under “Family Focused Interventions”

and Integrated Co-Occurring Treatment Program under “Diversion” within this section of “Mental Health Treatment.”



Substance Use Adolescent Portable Therapy

Recognizing that youth heavily involved in drug use are concentrated in juvenile detention centers, the Adolescent Portable Therapy (APT) was developed. Rather than providing treatment solely in custody, services begin upon entry into a detention facility and continue, uninterrupted, throughout institutionalization, as well as after release into the community. Therapists follow individuals as they progress through the juvenile justice system. In order to reduce substance abuse and recidivism while improving the physical, mental, social, and educational well-being of targeted youth and families, the three-phase program is founded on the following best practices: cognitive behavioral therapy and strength-based, family-focused intervention. Phase 1 comprises the entire duration of incarceration and focuses on triggers for substance use so healthier ways of coping can be developed. The transition from custody to the community is the core of Phase 2, in which the work with the family is most intensive, and therapists provide treatment within the home, at school, and anywhere else the juvenile and family require support. The goal is Phase 3, discharge, when treatment is finished and ongoing support is provided through the community. The cost is consistent with other intensive outpatient substance abuse treatment programs for youth. The program evaluation is still in progress; however, preliminary findings are promising. Based on 274 treatment youth and 245 control cases, self-reported marijuana and alcohol use improved, mental health needs decreased, and family functioning increased (based on the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales, FACES) (Vera Institute of Justice, 2004).

Criminal Conduct and Substance Abuse Treatment: Strategies for Self-Improve-

ment and Change

At the beginning of this evaluation, the Criminal Conduct and Substance Abuse Treatment program was offered at Camp Barrett. In August 2006, due to staffing issues, it was discontinued. Though the programs replacing this service do not focus on criminal conduct issues, substance abuse treatment is provided. Originally designed for adult substance abusing offenders, Criminal Conduct and Substance Abuse Treatment is an intensive program utilizing cognitive behavioral treatment for 9 to 12 months; however, according to Milkman and Wanberg (2007), the program also may be beneficial for older adolescents. Based on client and provider self-report data, positive outcomes have been shown related to substance abuse (up to 56%) and criminality (60%) abstinence.

Moral Reconation Therapy

Moral Reconation Therapy (MRT) is a cognitive-behavioral treatment that is used in a variety of settings, including juvenile detention, schools, and job training programs. MRT has been used with juveniles and adults and is recommended for individuals with co-occurring mental health and substance abuse issues. MRT aims to facilitate moral development, increase self-control, and reduce delinquent peer association in youth (Armstrong, 2003) through the reevaluation of decisions (reconation) in order to make



correct, pro-social (moral) decisions about behavior (Milkman & Wanberg, 2007). An example of an MRT exercise is giving a youth a moral dilemma to consider, which is then examined through group discussion and writing assignments. A meta-analysis of nine outcome studies, each of which used a matched, random, or control group for comparison, found that MRT treatment reduced short-term recidivism by 50 percent (Little, 2005). This program is rated with two stars because long-term outcomes are unknown.

Motivational Enhancement Therapy

Motivational Enhancement Therapy (MET) was developed for Project Matching Alcoholism Treatments to Client Heterogeneity (MATCH); a large randomized clinical trial sponsored by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. The MET therapist holds four sessions with the client wherein they discuss the effects of the client’s substance abuse, explore treatment options, and help develop goals (National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 2000). Though the therapist’s role is important, the client must be self-motivated (Lambie & Sias, 2006). Project MATCH included a cost-benefit component, which found that MET was a fairly low-cost treatment option (Cisler, Holder, Longabaugh, Stout, & Zweben, 1998). The project found MET to be effective in reducing substance use; however, the Project MATCH clients were adults (National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 2000). MET has been used in additional settings, including with adolescents, but no recidivism data were available for the juvenile population.

Phoenix Academy

This therapeutic community, previously described in Chapter 1, is offered at JRF, which houses youth in the target population (13- to 17-year-olds). Substance use and other co-occurring mental health and behavioral issues are addressed through treatment that involves the whole person (i.e., psychologically, socially, and behaviorally) through behavioral social learning strategies. This highly structured residential program fills the day with school, community meetings, lectures, counseling, community service, and recreation. A rigorous impact evaluation of this program in Los Angeles showed significant reductions in substance use up to 12 months following program participation (Morral, McCaffrey, & Ridgeway, 2004).

Project Towards No Drug Abuse

Project Towards No Drug Abuse was developed for youth ages 14 to 19 years old in comprehensive and continuation high schools. This population is similar to JRF youth with substance abuse issues. The goal of the program is to reduce substance use by using a motivational-skills-decision-making (MSD) curriculum. Originally designed to be provided in 12 sessions, the curriculum also has been delivered over a 9-week period. This curriculum helps the youth learn coping and decision-making techniques, while obtaining education on drugs and substance abuse. The Blueprints report recognizes some promising outcomes for this program, including 22 percent reduction in 30-day marijuana use and 27 percent reduction in 30-day hard drug use; however, reduction in alcohol use was less, at 9 percent (Sussman, Dent, & Stacy, 2002).



Reclaiming Futures

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundations funded ten sites across the country through the Reclaiming Futures project to address the substance abuse needs of delinquent youth by promoting new standards of care for juvenile justice through the collaborative participation of communities and other relevant stakeholders. This process of collaborative effort revealed that adolescents often cannot truly benefit from substance use treatment based on the 12-step approach (i.e., Alcoholics Anonymous/Narcotics Anonymous (AA/NA) model) for two reasons. First, youth do not “bottom out,” an essential characteristic for the 12-step recovery process. Second, it is hard for young people to recognize lack of personal control, particularly as related to substance use. Based on this view, evidence-based treatment incorporating cognitive behavioral strategies was selected as a better approach than the 12-step model. To ensure that youth are appropriately placed in treatment, upon entry into the juvenile justice system, youth are screened using a validated tool (e.g., MAYSI-2). Based on screening results, follow-up assessments (using nationally recognized tools) are conducted upon which treatment plans are designed and tailored (Bidmon, Yellow Eagle Cadue, Enniss, Heffron, Moffitt, Nguyen, Sarette, Shafer, Unger, Waild, & Wirschem, 2007). According to survey by the Urban Institute of local experts in the communities participating in Reclaiming Futures, positive outcomes included improvements in drug treatment effectiveness (Butts & Roman, 2007).

Relapse Prevention Therapy

Focusing on drug and alcohol addiction as a behavior rather labeling, Relapse Prevention Therapy uses cognitive-behavioral techniques to teach self management and self control of behavior and thoughts, particularly in high-risk situations. Relapse is viewed as a process rather than an event. Methods for dealing with urges and cravings are taught, as well as damage control techniques to minimize negative consequences of relapse. A meta-analysis of 24 randomized experiments of Relapse Prevention Therapy found reductions in the intensity of relapse episodes (Milkman & Wanberg, 2007).

Use of Force by Corrections

A fairly exhaustive search was conducted for current literature describing best practice techniques and training curricula related to the appropriate use of force by corrections staff in juvenile detention facilities. While the negative impact of restraint is reviewed (Kirkwood, 2003), there appears to be a dearth of literature on the most appropriate strategies for dealing with violent and unruly behavior among detained youth. The most current source dates back to 1996 in OJJDP’s “Desktop Guide to Good Juvenile Detention Practice.” This guide does not speak directly to the topic of “use of force,” but does offer practical advice for properly training staff in behavior management and enhancing their positive relationships with detainees. Some of the skills described in this guide include creating trust through honesty, active listening, concern, and prudent behavior. It also describes the distinctions between passive, assertive, and aggressive behaviors, strongly recommending that staff be trained and competent in assertive behavior. The question remains about how to deal with situations escalating beyond these techniques. During the



course of this evaluation, the San Diego County Probation Department addressed this issue through staff training in the implementation of Safe Crisis Management.

Safe Crisis Management

Although the California Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) has been revising its Use of Force Policy, these guidelines do not list specific choices for safe restraints when all else fails (California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice, 2005). However, Safe Crisis Management is one program based on principles of human development and safe physical intervention. The approach emphasizes positive behavioral intervention, proactive prevention, de-escalation techniques, physical interventions as a last resort, and post-intervention strategies. Though the implementation of this approach has not been evaluated through an experimental design, the program is consistent with the Child Welfare League of America (CWLA) Best Practices (JKM Training, Inc., 2006).

Work Readiness

Despite a generalized belief that keeping youth employed will deter delinquency, some research findings have contradicted this view. In fact, some researchers have hypothesized that youth who have jobs have a higher incidence of delinquent acts, possibly because their earnings give them a degree of freedom that they may not be mature enough to handle, and the type of low-skill, repetitive work they perform does not give them ample opportunity to create positive bonds with adults (Wofford & Elliott, 1997). Another study showed that youth who worked more than 15 to 20 hours per week actually performed worse in school and were more likely to use alcohol or other drugs (Steinberg & Dornbusch, 1991). Most of the researchers agree, however, that being employed is not the only variable preventing delinquency; rather, it is having gainful and meaningful employment that will help young people successfully enter adulthood (Elliott, Huzinga, & Ageton, 1985; Wofford & Elliott, 1997; Duster, 1987).

In 1997, the U.S. Department of Labor and OJJDP developed a task force to look at “what works” in preparing delinquent youth for the work force. In 1999, the Annie E. Casey Foundation invited the National Youth Employment Coalition (NYEC), Youth Development and Research Fund (YDRF), and the Justice Policy Institute to expand on the task force’s efforts. In 2002, these three groups issued their report, “Barriers and Promising Approaches to Workforce and Youth Development for Young Offenders Toolkit,” which mentions several promising and exemplary programs. The commonalities among these programs are:

commitment to rehabilitation (versus disciplinary action);

continuum of care (wraparound service model);

integrated education;

system collaboration;

support structures; and

accountability.



The following programs are deemed promising or exemplary due to their ability to create systems for tracking clients and services, and by measuring tangible outcomes through re-arrest and recidivism rates, as well as academic performance (Brown, Maxwell, DeJesus, & Schiraldi, 2002).

Gulf Coast Trades Center

Gulf Coast Trades Center (GCTC) is a Texas-based residential program, serving adjudicated youth between 16 and 18 years of age to prepare them for community-based work experience through a menu of services, including training in social skills and proper work attitudes, general educational development (GED) test preparation, job referral, driver education, and job-specific skills. Participants complete 200 hours of community service as a way to build confidence and leadership skills and gain work experience. According to the program’s own report of outcomes, almost two-thirds (65%) of participants have received their GED, and almost all (90%) found employment after release. They also reported a 22 percent recidivism rate over a one-year, follow-up period (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2000).

Project CRAFT

The Home Builders Institute (HBI) offers Project Community Restitution and Apprenticeship-Focused Training (CRAFT), a job-readiness initiative that can be implemented as a community-based program or in juvenile detention facilities. The program, which can serve as intervention and prevention, targets economically disadvantaged youth between 16 and 21 years old who are either incarcerated or out of school. Its main goal is to promote employment in the residential home building industry by teaching youth building-related skills and post-graduation placement in an industry-related job.

The project uses a holistic approach to treatment by combining training, support services, and community service involvement with long-term aftercare services that include ongoing treatment and coordination with public safety officials (probation, parole, etc.) to explore alternatives for community supervision. At the heart of the treatment component is the provision of wraparound services to ensure youth are linked to continuing education, counseling, substance abuse treatment, housing, and employment.

A sample of 149 Project CRAFT participants was independently evaluated over a four-year period using a quasi-scientific approach. Among the findings was a relatively low rate of recidivism (26%), and of those who recidivated, more than half (59%) did so within one year post release (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1999).

CUNY Catch

Based in the greater New York City area, the City University of New York (CUNY) community college system offers the CUNY Catch program, which is unique in that it is perhaps the only educational program to conduct outreach inside the detention facility



(twice a week), along with a continuum of care after release. The target population is both male and female juvenile offenders between 16 and 18 years of age who require intensive assistance with GED completion, job-seeking skills, and college entrance preparation. Program staff members work inside New York’s Rikers Island jail to conduct outreach to juvenile detainees through workshops, seminars, and motivational programming to spur juveniles into thinking about their academic and vocational futures. They also bridge the divide between detention and post-release programming services offered at three of CUNY’s community college campuses. These services include soft skills for seeking employment (i.e., appropriate ways to dress, speak, and greet people during an interview), use of campus library and computer lab facilities, and referral services for needs extending beyond vocational/educational issues.

Although no formal evaluations have been conducted, outcomes reported by the program note that in 1999, 500 youth were involved in post-release programming, half of those received college placement, and half also received job placement services. The Rikers Island principals give high marks to the CUNY Catch program for being committed to the detained youth and offering them a consistent message of empowerment and hope for their futures (Brown, Maxwell, DeJesus, & Schiraldi, 2002).

Table 7.1

Proven and Promising Programs by Need

Domain Proven Programs Promising Programs

FAMILY







Adolescent Portable Therapy


Family Solutions Program

PEER Brief Strategic Family Therapy



INDIVIDUAL

Capital and Serious Offender Treatment Program




Mental Health Assessment




Criminal Conduct and Substance Abuse Treatment: Strategies for Self-Improvement and Change

Emotionally Disturbed Treatment Program





Project Hope


Wraparound Milwaukee



Table 7.1

Proven and Promising Programs by Need (cont’d.)

Domain Proven Programs Promising Programs

EDUCATION Boys and Girls Club of America After School

Program

Lindamood-Bell Learning Processes

Project CRAFT

DELINQUENCY Capital and Serious Offender Treatment Program


Project CRAFT


SUBSTANCE USE



Phoenix Academy



Criminal Conduct and Substance Abuse

Treatment: Strategies for Self-Improvement

and Change


Illinois Mental Health Juvenile Justice

Initiative



Motivational Enhancement Therapy

Reclaiming Futures


SOURCE: SANDAG PEACE Final Report SUMMARY This chapter provides a review of the literature on best practices across the country. In light of the study findings from Project II (Recidivism analysis), Probation directors may want to consider some of the promising and proven programs in this chapter in order to improve outcomes for incarcerated youth. Table 7.1 presents the proven and promising programs reviewed in this chapter by SDRRC domain as a guide as gaps in services are considered based on the needs of detained youth. In addition, Chapter 9 discusses recommendations for this process. This table does not include any reference to the overall elements specified in the literature as associated with successful outcomes regardless of intervention type. These concepts, discussed in this chapter prior to presentation of specific promising and proven programs, are important to consider throughout strategic planning and implementation to ensure that program effectiveness.

CHAPTER 8 COST-EFFECTIVENESS


MAJOR FINDINGS

Camp Barrett is a more cost effective option for detaining youth than the California Youth Authority (CYA). Specifically, CYA would need 150 to 300 percent more effective than Camp Barrett to receive the same rate of return on taxpayers’ investments.


INTRODUCTION The goal of this project component was to compare the cost-effectiveness of California Youth Authority (CYA)1 and Camp Barrett. This component was designed to evaluate the costs of each program against its short-term benefits (within in one year of release), measured as future felony convictions and crimes prevented.

METHODOLOGY Initially, this study hoped to compare two historical samples (year 2000) from Camp Barrett and CYA and control for confounding effects to ascertain the true effect of each facility on the youth (i.e. whether one facility contributed to lower felony conviction rates after release than another) in relation to each facility’s costs,2 However, the descriptive statistics showed that the two groups of juveniles were very different from one another and, thus, could not be matched on key characteristics, like length of stay and age at release (i.e., confounding effects that might contribute to different rates of reoffending regardless of which facility they attended). These differences made it impossible to determine which facility was more effective at rehabilitating the juveniles. A cohort simulation model was developed since the Camp Barrett and CYA samples could not be matched. The model controlled for the sample differences by starting with two synthetic cohorts of 1,000 juveniles.3 The two cohorts were: 1) juveniles with characteristics of the year 2000 CYA sample (CYA cohort); and 2) juveniles with characteristics of the year 2000 Camp Barrett sample (Camp Barrett cohort) 4 Comparisons were made within each cohort by keeping the juvenile characteristics the same, while changing the facility characteristics. The model assumes that the characteristics of the juveniles would be the same whether they attended CYA or Camp Barrett and changes the program costs dependent upon the facility. Thus, the model simulates what the cost and benefits would be if each sample of youth attended the other facility, as well as the original cohort facility.

1 Though CYA is now called the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation – Division of Juvenile Justice, this

chapter refers to it as CYA because it was known as CYA in 2000, the year the data were collected. 2 Misdemeanor data were not available to make assumptions for the model parameters, like time served and victim costs. As

such, the study only uses felonies to measure benefits. 3 A synthetic cohort refers to a hypothetical group of persons who share a common experience or characteristic (i.e., the

CYA cohort has the characteristics of those who were detained at CYA in 2000). 4 The year 2000 sample data were obtained from the San Diego County Probation Department.



Since the model keeps the cohort characteristics the same regardless of which facility the youth attend, sensitivity analysis varies the recidivism rates5 and average number of felony convictions prevented, which account for facility differences in their rehabilitative effectiveness. Thus, the model evaluates the costs of each facility in relation to its effectiveness at preventing future felonies. Costs Costs were computed from the sample data and sources outlined in Appendix Tables B1-B4 and Table B8. The facility costs were based on the year 2000 individual-level sample data and applied to both synthetic cohorts to determine the program costs. The length of stay, calculated as days, was multiplied by the daily program cost. This distribution was applied to the synthetic cohorts. Additionally, the sliding scale costs charged to the County for sending a juvenile to CYA were calculated and applied to each cohort when they were assumed to be attending CYA. 6 The parole and aftercare daily costs were applied to a percentage of each cohort based on the average length of parole/aftercare for each group (this was based on estimates from CYA/San Diego County Probation). Benefits (Cost Offsets or Savings) Benefits were calculated as future felonies prevented within one year of release. The first step, using the sample data, was to determine the percentage of juveniles for each facility that were not convicted of a felony within one year of release.7 This percentage was applied to the synthetic cohort. Using the sample data, the average number of felony convictions per felony re-offender was calculated. It was assumed that those without new convictions would have offended at the same rate as known re-offenders, and this average was applied to the non-recidivating cases to compute the number of felony convictions prevented for each cohort. Next, the model calculated the savings to the criminal justice system. The number of felony convictions prevented was converted to felony arrests prevented using a ratio of convictions to arrests. San Diego County’s distribution of felony arrests by offense type for the year 2000 was applied to the total number of felony arrests prevented for each cohort. The felony arrests by offense type were converted back to convictions by offense type to estimate the time served in jail, prison, and/or probation and parole. The court and public defender costs were based on a proportion of the felony arrests assumed to receive these services.

5 Recidivism is defined in this study as felony convictions within one year of release. The sample data did not distinguish

juvenile felony convictions from adult felony convictions. The model assumes adult felony convictions since the vast majority of the sample were adults when they were released.

6 The State of California charges each County for sending juveniles to CYA. The sliding scale costs are based on the level of the offense. The costs are more for offenders convicted of lesser offenses, and the costs are less for offenders convicted of higher-level offenses.

7 All cases in both samples had been released for at least four years for consistency across cohorts.



Victim cost savings also were estimated. Arrests prevented by offense type were converted to crimes prevented by type using a ratio of arrests to offenses. Using the figures from Miller, Cohen, and Wiersema (1996), the monetary savings to victims and society were calculated. While the above steps make numerous assumptions, these assumptions are equally applied within each cohort. Thus, they do not bias the results to favor one facility over the other.

Benefit-Cost Ratios The total benefits (cost offsets) were divided by total costs to get a benefit-cost ratio. This ratio represents the return on taxpayers’ investment (costs). Comparison ratios were calculated within each cohort (Camp Barrett and CYA) based on the assumed detainment facility. As discussed in the methodology, comparisons are made within each cohort by keeping the juvenile characteristics the same, while changing the cost to represent the other facility. Thus, the comparison is between CYA juveniles who attended CYA to CYA juveniles who attended Camp Barrett (and Camp Barrett juveniles who attended Camp Barrett compared with Camp Barrett juveniles who attended CYA) – with, initially, the assumption that the percentage of those not reconvicted for felonies and the average number of prevented felony convictions would be the same (i.e., the cohort remains the same but the facility changes). This base case is tested in the sensitivity analysis that computes a range of benefit-cost ratios for each cohort based on varying recidivism rates and average number of prevented felony convictions. These ranges of benefit-cost ratios test the robustness of this study’s conclusions and show the degree of difference between the two facilities.8 This study looks at recidivism within one year of release and considers the short-term benefits of both facilities. As a result, the overall benefits may be underestimated; therefore, this analysis is meant to be used as a comparison between the cost-effectiveness of the two facilities and not as a stand-alone analysis of any one facility. The results are reported as benefit-cost ratios instead of present net benefits because of this underestimate. Present net benefits would not be a good measure because it underestimates the total benefits. Benefit-cost ratios, on the other hand, are sound measures because they are relative to one another.

STUDY LIMITATIONS It is important to note that this study’s conclusions are dependent upon the strength of the sample design of the year 2000 sample that was used to calculate costs (using the length of stay distribution) for both cohorts. The cost component is the driving force in the benefit-cost ratio, because it represents the differences between the two facilities within each cohort (i.e., the benefit amount is the same within each cohort, but the costs are different). Thus, it should be noted that the year 2000 sample, while random, was small (CYA = 47 and Camp Barrett = 59). (Please see Chapter 2 and Appendix B for a more detailed description of methodology and model parameters.)

8 Robustness is a statistical term that refers to model results that withstand changes to assumptions.



BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS RESULTS Camp Barrett is more cost-effective than CYA for detaining juveniles according to the model. Table 8.1 shows the base case model, using the CYA cohort, with recidivism rates and average number of prevented felony convictions the same regardless of facility.9 As shown, the benefit-cost ratio of detaining the CYA cohort at CYA is .47, while the benefit-cost ratio of detaining the same juveniles at Camp Barrett is 1.32. Likewise, the benefit-cost ratio of detaining the Camp Barrett cohort at Camp Barrett is 8.19 versus 5.30 when they are housed at CYA (Table 8.2). Thus, there is a higher rate of return to taxpayers, society, and victims when juveniles are detained at Camp Barrett. This difference in ratios within each cohort can be attributed to the higher costs at CYA. Assuming equal outcomes for both facilities, CYA is more than two and a half times more expensive than Camp Barrett when housing the CYA cohort. It costs $488,697,692 to detain 1,000 juveniles (CYA cohort) at CYA versus $175,105,745 at Camp Barrett (Table 8.1). These costs assume the same length of stay at both facilities and the same proportion receiving the same length of aftercare. Likewise, it costs $37,021,607 to detain the Camp Barrett cohort at CYA versus $23,938,326 at Camp Barrett (Table 8.2).

Table 8.1 Base Case CYA Cohort Simulation Model

CYA Camp Barrett

Percent Not Reconvicted 77% 77%

Average Number of Felony Convictions per Re-offender 1.20 1.20

Total Program Costs (2006-07 dollars) $488,697,692 $175,105,745

Total Benefits (2006-07 dollars) $230,874,997 $230,874,997

Average Cost per Non-recidivating Juvenile (2006-07 dollars) $632,209 $226,527

Benefit-Cost Ratio 0.47 1.32

NOTE: Costs were adjusted from 2000-01 dollars using the Consumer Price Index.


9 Base case refers to the initial model using recidivism data and average number of prevented felony convictions based on

the year 2000 sample data.



Table 8.2 Base Case Camp Barrett Cohort Simulation Model

Camp Barrett CYA

Percent Not Reconvicted 68% 68%

Average Number of Felony Convictions per Re-offender 1.16 1.16

Total Program Costs (2006-07 dollars) $23,938,326 $37,021,607

Total Benefits (2006-07 dollars) $196,034,966 $196,034,966

Average Cost per Non-recidivating Juvenile (2006-07 dollars) $35,307 $54,604

Benefit-Cost Ratio 8.19 5.30

NOTE: Costs were adjusted from 2000-01 dollars using the Consumer Price Index.


Sensitivity Analysis The sensitivity analysis is especially important because it accounts for rehabilitative differences between the two facilities. Since the actual sample of juveniles at each facility was not directly comparable to one another, and thus, the study could not determine if one facility was actually more effective than the other, it is this part of the analysis that compares the potential rehabilitative effectiveness of both facilities (albeit as a simulation). While the results do not estimate which facility is more effective, it does estimate how much more effective CYA would need to be in order to receive the same return on taxpayers’ money. The analysis tested two major assumptions that approximate the rehabilitative effectiveness of each facility – number not reconvicted of a felony offense and average number of prevented felony convictions. The base case figures are shown in Table 8.1 for the CYA cohort and Table 8.2 for the Camp Barrett cohorts. By varying these figures in sensitivity analysis, the model can estimate how much more effective CYA would need to be than Camp Barrett at rehabilitating juveniles to receive the same monetary return.

Varying the Recidivism Rate Sensitivity analysis was conducted first using the number of juveniles not reconvicted of a felony as a measure of effectiveness. As shown in Figures 8.1 and 8.2, CYA would need to be almost one and a half to three times more effective than Camp Barrett to have an equal rate of return. Thus, even if the CYA facility were somewhat more effective at rehabilitating youths, Camp Barrett would still have the higher return on investment.10

10 The Camp Barrett cohort has a much higher rate of return (benefit-cost ratio) because the juveniles are lesser offenders

than the CYA cohort. Thus, the costs are much less.



Figure 8.1 CYA Cohort, Varying Recidivism Rates Model


Figure 8.2 Camp Barrett Cohort, Varying Recidivism Rates Model


0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

Number Not Recidivating (per 1,000)

Ben

efit

-Co

st R

atio

CYA Cohort at CYA CYA Cohort at CB

250 710

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

Number Not Recidivating (per 1,000)

Ben

efit

-Co

st R

atio

CB Cohort at CB CB Cohort at CYA

773



Varying the Average the Number of Felonies Next, sensitivity analysis used the average number of felony convictions prevented as a measure of effectiveness. The results of this analysis also show that the base case results are robust. Even if CYA was somewhat more effective at reducing the number of felonies committed within one year of release, Camp Barrett would be more cost-effective. As shown in Figure 8.3, on average, CYA would have to prevent almost one and a half to three times the number of felonies as Camp Barrett to achieve the same rate of return.

Figure 8.3 CYA Cohort, Varying Average Number of Felonies Model


0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

Avg. Number of Felony Convictions Prevented

Ben

efit

-Co

st R

atio


.72



Figure 8.4 Camp Barrett Cohort, Varying Average Number of Felonies Model


Varying Both Sensitivity analysis also tested the 90 percent confidence intervals of the two assumptions at the same time. Both the number of youth not reconvicted of a felony offense and average number of felony convictions prevented were each given 1,000 draws (random numbers) that were input into the model simultaneously. Since the base case figures were based on a sample, the random numbers were restricted to a range set by the 90 percent confidence intervals of the figures used in the base case scenario.11 The analysis used a uniform distribution within the ranges because it assumed that any number within the range was just as likely to occur as any other number. For each random draw, both facilities within the cohort were given the same number not reconvicted of a felony offense and average number of felony convictions prevented. As a result of the analysis, 1,000 benefit-cost ratios were generated for each group and averaged to get an overall benefit-cost ratio for each group: CYA cohort at CYA (.47), CYA cohort at Camp Barrett (1.32), Camp Barrett cohort at Camp Barrett (8.15), and Camp Barrett cohort at CYA (5.29). Again, Camp Barrett is more cost-effective than CYA.

11 The ranges for offenders without new convictions were 62 percent to 92 percent for the CYA cohort and 58 percent to 78

percent for the Camp Barrett cohort. The average number of felony convictions prevented ranges were 0.87 to 1.53 for the CYA cohort and 1.02 to 1.30 for the Camp Barrett cohort.

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

Avg. Number of Felony Convictions Prevented

Ben

efit

-Co

st R

atio

CB Cohort at CB CB at CYA



The benefit-cost ratios also were plotted to test if any of the 1,000 draws within each cohort resulted in CYA being more cost-effective. As shown in Figure 8.5, Camp Barrett is always the more cost-effective option for the CYA cohort. This finding is demonstrated by almost all of the light gray dots (the benefit-cost ratios generated from the Camp Barrett facility) falling above the black dots (CYA facility) on the chart. The range of ratios for the CYA cohort is 0.28 to 0.71 at CYA and 0.80 to 1.98 at Camp Barrett.

Figure 8.5 CYA Cohort, Testing 90% Confidence Intervals of Number Not Reconvicted of a Felony Offense and Average Number of Felony Convictions Prevented

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

Random Number Draws within 90% Confidence Intervals

Ben

efit

-Co

st R

atio





The Camp Barrett cohort plot, on the other hand, does show CYA as the more cost-effective option for eight percent of the random draws (Figure 8.6). The range of ratios for the CB cohort is 6.16 to 10.45 at CB and 3.99 to 6.72 at CYA, and thus, does overlap. However, using this analysis to demonstrate that any value within the 90 percent confidence intervals for the number not reconvicted of a felony offense and the average number of felony convictions prevented could occur in actuality means that Camp Barrett still would have the higher rate of return about 92 percent of the time. Thus, detaining juveniles at Camp Barrett is still the more cost-effective option overall.

Figure 8.6 Camp Barrett Cohort, Testing 90% Confidence Intervals of Number Not Reconvicted

of a Felon Offense and Average Number of Felony Convictions Prevented

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

Random Number Draws within 90% Confidence Intervals

Ben

efit

-Co

st R

atio

CB Cohort at CB CB Cohort at CYA


SUMMARY As part of the evaluation of local juvenile facilities, a benefit-cost analysis was conducted that compared Camp Barrett to CYA. The results of the cost-benefit study suggest that Camp Barrett is the more cost-effective alternative for detaining juveniles. This conclusion is due to the high costs associated with CYA. Using the number not reconvicted of a felony within one year and the average number of felony convictions prevented per re-offender as rehabilitative measures, CYA would need to be one and a half to three times more effective than Camp Barrett to receive the same rate of return on taxpayers’ investment.

CHAPTER 9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS



INTRODUCTION This report summarized the results from three projects as part of an evaluation regarding the effectiveness of two juvenile detention facilities for delinquent males in San Diego County: the Juvenile Ranch Facility (JRF) and Camp Barrett. The program analysis described characteristics of youth detained in each facility, including the needs of these youth and the services provided to meet these needs. The recidivism study assessed the trajectory of those released from each facility for up to two years after release into the community. Finally, the cost-benefit analysis compared the costs and benefits of housing juvenile male offenders at Camp Barrett in contrast to the statewide Division of Juvenile Justice, or DJJ (formerly the California Youth Authority, or CYA). With the changes in policy at DJJ (to redirect housing of a greater number of youth locally), the findings presented in this report are of particular interest.

CONCLUSIONS Juvenile Ranch Facility Youth entering JRF can be described as high risk, as assessed through the San Diego Regional Resiliency Checkup (SDRRC), as well as the amount of criminal involvement prior to arrival at the facility. While a variety of services were offered in custody, the short length of stay for most of the youth at the facility limited the ability of these programs to reduce individual risk and improve protective factors. There also may be a need to overtly link assessment results to service provisions in order to ensure that services meet the needs of youth. In terms of behavior upon release, almost two-thirds desisted from delinquency based on sustained petitions. Though grade point average (GPA) is only measured at entry and exit, this element improved significantly during the JRF stay. Based on multivariate analyses, there were no factors predictive of being re-arrested. However, factors predictive for having a true finding one year post release included receiving services for substance abuse treatment, having an instant offense resulting for a new charge, and having a greater number of true findings in the pre-period. Services received in the facility were not associated with reduced recidivism, even when matched to needs in the areas of family issues, academics, or delinquency. Funding and resource availability impacted the ability of program staff to provide program continuity, which could partially explain this finding. While the services offered at JRF are based on promising programs, program effectiveness may be improved by ensuring that the programs are implemented as designed.



Camp Barrett Youth detained at Camp Barrett also are only high-risk and have even more extensive criminal histories, relative to JRF youth. This finding is not surprising because Camp Barrett is the sanction used when previous consequences have failed to change delinquent behavior. Despite the long list of programs available at Camp Barrett, it appears unmet needs continue to exist, particularly in the area of substance use. During the study period, several new programs were implemented at Camp Barrett, predominantly in the area of substance use and work readiness. In terms of recidivism, about half of the youth (52%) were able to refrain from continued delinquency within the first year following release based on a sustained petition for a new offense. Statistical analysis of factors predicting recidivism found that having a higher risk score on the SDRRC at entry predicted that a juvenile would be more likely to be re-arrested one year post release. The ability of detention programs to improve SDRRC scores by increasing the factors that are dynamic and protective against continued delinquency is hampered by facility location, which is removed from the communities and families potentially facilitating reentry. These findings highlight the need to continue services begun in custody upon release to facilitate reintegration and improve outcomes. Costs and Benefits The cost-benefit analysis confirmed the view that Camp Barrett is more cost-effective than CYA. Specifically, CYA would need to be one and a half to three times more effective than Camp Barrett to receive the same rate of return on taxpayers’ investment. Youth Perspective Youth interviewed reported rare participation in services following release despite appreciation of programming provided in custody. The results from these interviews also highlighted the interrelated issues of education and employment, emphasizing the need to ensure that these youth attain a high school diploma or the equivalent in order to improve employment opportunities. These findings suggest the need for assistance in linking youth to services in the community following release, which could be facilitated through San Diego County Probation Department’s Aftercare Unit. Unfortunately, resources have been unavailable for all youth released from Camp Barrett (according to Probation staff). Staff Perspective The majority of respondents to the general staff survey held positive views about the youth detained in the facilities and thought rehabilitation was possible and something to strive toward. In regard to programming, staff responding to the in-depth survey felt that services related to preparing the youth for release, such as work readiness, education, and literacy were most helpful.



RECOMMENDATIONS Though some of the findings presented in this report highlighted a need for additional programming in the facilities to address the needs of incarcerated youth, the San Diego County Public Safety Group and Probation Department should be commended for exploring these issues and implementing innovative programs throughout the juvenile justice system (e.g., the Comprehensive Strategy). The Probation Department has developed a continuum of services and sanctions to reduce the likelihood that youth are incarcerated, as has been advocated in the juvenile justice literature (Holman & Ziedenberg, 2006; Zavlek, 2005). When detention cannot be avoided, the Probation Department is interested in minimizing the negative impact of the custody experience. The following recommendations are offered based on data and research on promising programs presented in this report, as possible future steps in reaching the goal of rehabilitation. It is acknowledged that limited resources may affect how quickly or to what extent changes can be made. Study results suggest that receipt of services (as they were provided during the evaluation period) does not appear to be directly related to a decreased probability of recidivism, highlighting the fact that innovative programming in custody is the starting point of rehabilitation, requiring continuation once the youth is released into the community. There are several recommendations that follow from this conclusion. The recommendations are organized under three different headings: immediate (strategies that can be implemented with internal coordination), short-term (ideas potentially requiring collaboration outside the agency), and long-term (proposals needing additional funding).

Immediate

Increase access of detained youth to his family: After release from custody, the community and family are key in the rehabilitative process begun while detained. Upon entry to JRF, for example, over half of the youth received support from family members and over two-thirds felt unconditional parental love. Probation may want to consider new strategies to build on these strengths and ensure families can be engaged and collaborate in the rehabilitative process while youth are detained and services consistently provided. Parent(s)/guardian(s), in particular, can be key actors in facilitating successful reentry. Family members who cannot travel to the facility may be able to access regional probation offices and participate in teleconferences with their detained child as conditions for release are developed. With family input, these plans for release could accommodate family circumstances (e.g., include linkages to services to support the family).

Examine implementation of in-custody programs: Though program fidelity was not directly measured, the challenges described in Chapter 1 regarding constrained resources, staff turnover, and logistical/contractual issues suggest that continuity in service provision was less than designed. Data from monthly operational reports show interruptions in service delivery. Providing content consistent with the design could also be an issue. Research shows that program effectiveness is directly related to program fidelity. Further, if staff members do not have the skills and experience necessary to deliver the services as designed, are not appropriately trained, and are not held accountable for performance, program fidelity is



compromised, and program effectiveness can suffer. Given outcomes revealed through the regression analysis, a starting point would be to examine program implementation in the facilities followed by program audits conducted on a regular basis to ensure program fidelity. Information regarding program fidelity can be used to develop staff training to address inconsistencies with the program design.

Strengthen aftercare services: Detention is often the starting point in the rehabilitative process, with the bulk of services delivered in the community. In the past, Probation’s Aftercare Unit has been responsible for facilitating this process for youth released from Camp Barrett, while the Breaking Cycles program follows juveniles at JRF. According to Probation staff, resources in the Aftercare unit have been unavailable for all youth released from Camp Barrett, potentially negating the positive gains achieved form services received in custody. Examination of means to maintain designated capacity of aftercare services is recommended to help improve outcomes.

Expand incentives for compliance: A system of incentives and graduated sanctions reinforces treatment engagement and encourages positive behavior (Bidmon, et al., 2007). Expansion of incentives, like the Top Dorm program at JRF, is an idea worth expanding while the youth are in custody. Upon release, collaborative participation of youth and family in development of reentry goal plan (and conditions of release) can assist in creating motivation to change. In addition, movie passes, gift certificates, food coupons, and reduced time under probation supervision can facilitate motivation to change, as well as the system graduated sanctions available through Breaking Cycles (over two-thirds of the JRF sample were Breaking Cycles cases).

Short-Term

Strengthen linkages to educational programs upon release to support continued progress toward completion of high school education: Although the academic involvement for the JRF sample included passing grades and a positive attitude about school (both improving since incarceration), over one-third of the Camp Barrett youth interviewed one year after release from the facility had dropped out of school. While Camp Barrett offers a variety of programs above and beyond school attendance, these results suggest the need to ensure completion of high school for incarcerated youth, as well as participation in vocational training.

Tailor in-custody educational programs to learning style of participants: The literature on best practices supports educational programs that are tailored toward the learning style of each student (Sheridan & Steele-Dadzie, 2005). Educational material should be connected to the experiences of students with peer interaction and hands-on activities a small classroom setting. Though the San Diego County Office of Education (SDCOE) operates the schools within the facilities, this recommendation still is relevant because the Probation Department works with them in this endeavor. The Probation Department and SDCOE should collaborate to revise the educational services offered to youth.



Long-Term

Augment in-custody programming with services specifically designed to address unmet needs: The proven and promising programs reviewed in this report provide a starting point for determining the most appropriate methods for addressing the needs of incarcerated youth (see Table 7.1 for a summary of these programs, some of which are currently offered at JRF and/or Camp Barrett, or have been in the past). To ensure effectiveness, this programming may require a philosophical shift among staff from an emphasis on managing detained youth to facilitating a process of treatment that begins in custody and continues upon release to the community and thereafter (Byrne, Taxman, & Young, 2002).

Increase participation in services related to peers: Peer influence and neighborhood environment have been linked to delinquency in the juvenile justice literature. Only about half of youth assessed as needing services in the peer domain received programming in this area. Further, responses during youth interviews indicated that these individuals return to neighborhoods characterized by criminal activity and violent victimization, including gangs. Efforts should be made to ensure that all youth in custody participate in programs like ART and Character Counts, as well as gang intervention in order to prepare for reentry into negative environments with negative peers. Continuation of services upon release would further assist youth at the critical time of reentry.

Consider utilizing trained therapists rather than correctional personnel: A review of many programs using the meta-analysis technique by Lipsey and Wilson (1998) indicated that treatment provided by mental health personnel was more effective than programs delivered by juvenile justice staff. Probation may want to further develop partnerships with community-based agencies or the mental health section of the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency to provide this treatment.

Provide practical employment training: The literature on what works with incarcerated adults suggest that employment training provided by private employers is more effective than more traditional interventions that may not teach skills most needed in the local community (Moses & Smith, 2007). Probation may want to consider collaboration with local businesses to create a relationship between youth in custody and employers, particularly at Camp Barrett where the youth are older and stay in custody for a longer period of time.

Evaluate the impact of work readiness: With one-third of the Camp Barrett sample described as high school dropouts, the potential for these individuals to seek gainful employment and avoid future incarceration is decreased. Since this study began, Camp Barrett has implemented a work readiness program and expanded the Regional Occupational Program (ROP) to improve the employability of wards. Unfortunately, the study sample did not have the opportunity to participate in these new programs. Follow-up on a more recent sample would provide outcome data to show the impact of these efforts in improving employability of these youth.

Cultivate community supports: Given the need for reentry services suggested by the results of this evaluation, Probation may want to identify groups and individuals within the communities where detained youth will return upon release to act as mentors, provide pro-



social activities, teach skills, and reconnect youth to the community. Further, community collaboration can leverage additional resources for youth and decrease the fragmentation in service delivery resulting from constrained resources observed during this evaluation. Probation has a long history of collaborating with community partners that may be able to be expanded in the institutions.

Increase availability of mental health services: Mental health needs (e.g., individual counseling, monitoring of medication) were frequently fulfilled weekly, upon request, via transfer to either the Kearny Mesa or East Mesa Jevenile Detention Facilities, or through tele-psychiatry. Though this evaluation did not directly measure mental health issues among youth housed at JRF and Camp Barrett, the literature suggests that this population would benefit from more regular services delivered personally.

During the course of this evaluation, the Probation Department continued to modify the programming available within the facilities based on need. In JRF, positive behavior within the facility was promoted through the implementation of a new program called WEEDS: Wards Encouraged Every Day to Succeed. Work readiness programming started in Camp Barrett and continues to be expanded. In addition, efforts to increase substance abuse treatment options in Camp Barrett began with the implementation of MITE substance abuse services and continue as provision of regular Alcoholics Anonymous/Narcotics Anonymous meetings is sought. Development of mental health resources and outreach to community faith-based organizations continues at both facilities. These examples illustrate the proactive approach that the Probation Department takes in the area of juvenile detention, in keeping with the continuum of services maintained in the community. Limited fiscal resources may make some of these recommendations seem impossible; however, all of these recommendations are particularly salient given the high cost of incarceration, both locally and statewide. With the shift of responsibility for housing a greater proportion of youthful offenders from the state to local governments (Governor’s Budget, 2007), there is an even more critical need to ensure that the juvenile justice detention system utilizes the most effective and appropriate programming in order to maximize rehabilitation of youth and minimize recidivism. As Probation is well aware, redirecting resources toward best practices and seeking grant funding are two ways to implement these recommendations within budgetary constraints.

APPENDIX A BACKGROUND TABLES

A-1

Table A1 Services Provided at JRF and Camp Barrett

July 2005 through December 2007

Class JRF Camp Barrett

Alcoholics Anonymous/Narcotics Anonymous Consistent throughout study Periodic*

Aggression Replacement Training Consistent since 1/2006 Periodic*

Character Counts Consistent throughout study Consistent throughout study

Conflict Management** Unknown Consistent since 12/2005

Criminal Conduct and Substance Abuse Treatment n/a July 2005 – August 2006

Life Skills n/a Periodic*

Literacy and Reading Clinic Consistent throughout study n/a

Substance Abuse Treatment n/a Consistent as of 3/2007

Teen Relationship Violence n/a Periodic*

Thinking for a Change n/a Consistent since 8/2006

Work Readiness n/a Consistent as of 1/2007

Building and Grounds n/a Consistent as of 8/2006

Culinary Arts n/a Consistent as of 11/2006

Fire Academy Regional Occupational Program n/a Except during fire season

* The number of classes varied throughout the study period as explained in Chapter 1.

** This information is not captured on JRF monthly operational reports because the program is operated by the San Diego County Office of Education rather than directly by the Probation Department.

NOTE: The four classes listed in bold were established after the beginning of the evaluation period.

SOURCE: Monthly Operational Reports, San Diego County Probation Department

A-2

Table A2 In-Custody Programming by Risk/Protective Domain1


FAMILY

Aggression Replacement Training Character Counts Family Visits Parent Meetings (Phoenix House) Young Parent group/Teen parenting (MITE

Parent Education)

Aggression Replacement Training Character Counts Family Counseling Family Visits Life Skills Teen Relationship Violence Thinking for a Change

PEER

Aggression Replacement Training Character Counts Conflict Managers Program Mental Health Counseling Recreation Camp Olympics

Aggression Replacement Training Character Counts Conflict Managers Program Mental Health Counseling Recreation Sports Saturday Substance Abuse Groups (replaced Criminal

Conduct/Substance Abuse) Team Leader Program Teen Relationship Violence Thinking for a Change

INDIVIDUAL

AA/NA ACCESS Counseling Aggression Replacement Training Character Counts Conflict Managers Program Mental Health Counseling MITE Drug Counseling Phoenix House Re-Entry Phoenix House Therapeutic Community Tele-psychiatry

AA/NA Aggression Replacement Training Character Counts Community Service Conflict Managers Program Life Skills Mental Health Counseling Substance Abuse Education Substance Abuse Groups (replaced Criminal

Conduct/Substance Abuse) Substance Abuse Individual Counseling Tele-psychiatry Thinking for a Change

EDUCATION

Literacy Reading Clinic School

Building and Grounds Maintenance Career Guidance Community Service Culinary Arts Fire Academy Regional Occupational

Program Literacy School Substance Abuse Education Work Readiness Program

A-3

Table A2 In-Custody Programming by Risk/Protective Domain1 (cont’d.)


DELINQUENCY

AA/NA ACCESS Counseling Aggression Replacement Training Bible study Character Counts Church Conflict Managers Program Drug/Alcohol Class Mental Health Counseling MITE Drug Counseling Recreation Phoenix House Re-Entry Phoenix House Therapeutic Community

AA/NA Aggression Replacement Training Bible study Character Counts Church Recreation Teen Relationship Violence Thinking for a Change Substance Abuse Education Substance Abuse Groups (replaced Criminal

Conduct/Substance Abuse) Substance Abuse Individual Counseling

SUBSTANCE USE

AA/NA ACCESS Counseling Drug/Alcohol Class MITE Drug Counseling Phoenix House Re-entry Phoenix House Therapeutic Community

AA/NA Substance Abuse Education Substance Abuse Groups (replaced Criminal

Conduct/Substance Abuse) Substance Abuse Individual Counseling

1 This categorization of services into domains was developed through discussions with program staff. SOURCE: San Diego County Probation Department

A-4

Table A3 In-Custody Programming1 by Facility

JRF Camp Barrett

AA/NA 61% 29%


Building and Grounds Maintenance n/a 19%

Career Guidance2 n/a 8%


Community Service n/a 9%

Computer Training n/a 4%

Criminal Conduct/Substance Use n/a 21%

Family Visits 41% 63%

Fire Academy Regional Occupational Program n/a 11%

Life Skills n/a 24%

Literacy 57% 10%

MITE Drug Counseling 39% n/a

Phoenix House Therapeutic Community 53% n/a

Phoenix House Re-entry 0% n/a

Safety Lectures n/a 8%

Teen Relationship Violence n/a 33%


Work Crew 26% n/a TOTAL 238 160

1 This list of programs received by wards in each facility is based on those services documented in

PCMS. Any programs not documented in PCMS are excluded because attendance information is unavailable. In addition, some programs are so new that sample cases did not have a chance to participate. These programs also are excluded. These programs include Young Parent Group/Teen Parenting (MITE Parenting Education) for JRF. For Camp Barrett, these new programs include Substance Abuse Education, Culinary Arts, and Work Readiness.

2 According to the Camp Barrett monthly operational reports, Career Guidance was not offered during 2006 due to lack of an instructor, but was offered in 2005 when the study began.


A-5

Table A4 Staff Familiarity with Programs and Perception of Effectiveness by SDRRC Domain

Domain Program Familiar Effective Rating



Parenting Classes 48% 56%

Family Counseling 43% 50%



FAMILY








PEER










INDIVIDUAL


Literacy Program 87% 89%

General Equivalency Diploma (GED) 92% 95%

Career Guidance 79% 76%

Fire Academy Regional Occupational Program 65% 83%

EDUCATION

Work Readiness Program 61% 100%









DELINQUENCY



Criminal Conduct and Substance Abuse Treatment Classes 87% 58% SUBSTANCE USE

Drug Court 48% 67%

Work Crews 91% 70%

Dorm Orientation 81% 88%

First Aid/Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) 68% 85%

Tattoo Removal 61% 62%

Short-Term Offender Program (STOP) 57% 45%

Positive Peer Leadership Program 33% 67%

OTHER

TOTAL 21-24 6-20

NOTE: Since programs apply to more than one domain, the information is repeated accordingly.

SOURCE: In-depth Staff Surveys for PEACE Study, SANDAG

A-6

Table A5 Promising Programs

Category Program Setting Target

Population Duration Methods Rating

Boys and Girls Clubs of America

Non-Residential (after school

program)

Ages 7-18 Varies Educational activities such as leisure reading, essay writing, homework assistance, and educational games

Academics: General Center for Alternative Sentencing and Employment Services (CASES) Committee on Court-Involved Students

School Youth released from custody

10-15 months

Educational assessments and support during enrollment in community schools

Academics: Literacy Lindamood-Bell Learning Processes

Varies Incarcerated youth

8-10 weeks Three hours of instruction, five days/week, focus on cognitive processes

Aftercare

Intensive Aftercare Program

From custody to transition to

aftercare

Incarcerated youth

About 10 months (2

months prior to release

through 8 months in aftercare)

Case planning designed to address needs during incarceration to transition to aftercare

Aggression Reduction

Aggression Replacement Training (ART)

School/Classroom Ages 12-17 10 weeks Interventions focus on skill streaming, anger-control training, and training in moral reasoning

Capital and Serious Violent Offender Treatment Program

Detention Detained youth Up to 5 months

Group psychotherapy using social learning, cognitive-behavioral techniques, re-enactment, and role playing


Detention or community

Can be specialized by

age

8-12 weeks Cognitive-behavioral treatment

Criminality

Thinking for a Change Detention or community

Adult and juvenile

offenders

11 weeks (if 2 lessons are done each

week)

Cognitive restructuring, social skills training, and problem solving

A-7

Table A5 Promising Programs (cont’d.)



Detention Reform: General

Multnomah County n/a Minority youth n/a Creation of a risk assessment instrument, provision of alternative community sanctions, community policing

Detention Reform: Risk Assessment Guided Detention Decisions

Intensive Protective Supervision Project (IPSP)

Community Status offenders

under age 16

Up to 1 year High levels of probation supervision

Detention Reform: Community Justice

Small Community-Based Facilities Program Model

Detention Violent and serious juvenile

offenders

As long as youth are in detention

Individualized, comprehensive services to address needs and risk factors


Community Ages 6-17 8-12 weeks Family systems therapy, home visits, parent education, parenting skills training, task-oriented family education

Functional Family Therapy Community Delinquents, ages 11-18,

and their families

30 hours Individual and family therapy, other services that the counselor determines are needed

Family Solutions Program Community First time juvenile

offenders

10 sessions Ten-session therapeutic program for youth and their families; includes building relationships, confronting resistance to treatment, and group involvement and growth

Family Focused Interventions

Multi-Systemic Therapy (MST)

Home Severe, chronic, or substance abusing

offenders, ages 12-17

4 months (60 hours of contact)

Therapy for the youth and his or her family, as well as individuals from the youth’s school, social network, and neighborhood

A-8




Assessment Juvenile justice Ages 12-17 15 minutes Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument

(MAYSI-2)

Ages 9-17 At least one hour

Voice Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children (V-DISC)

Bernalillo County Juvenile Detention Center (BCJCD)

Detention Youth with mental health

needs

As long as youth are in the juvenile

justice system

Screening, assessment, and mental health treatment

Brief Eclectic Therapy Detention Youth 4 months Cognitive-behavioral, psycho-educational, and psychodynamic therapies

Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT)

Detention Youth with mental health

disorders

Varies Cognitive-behavioral treatment

Emotionally Disturbed Treatment Program (EDTP)

Detention Youth with emotional/mental health needs

9 months Behavioral therapy, counseling, and medication

Family Integrated Transitions (FIT) Project

Community Ages 11-17 with co-occurring mental health and substance abuse issues

6-8 months MST, Motivational Enhancement Therapy, Relapse Prevention, and DBT

Mental Health

Treatment

Family Intervention Resources Services Team (FIRST)

Diversion First time status offenders,

middle-school aged

6 months Case management

A-9





Detention and then community

Detained youth with serious

mental illness co-occurring

with substance abuse

6 Months Case management with wraparound services


Diversion and aftercare

Ages 13-18 with co-occurring mental health and substance abuse issues

3-4 months Intensive, home-based model using a treatment stage approach

Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care (MTFC)

Foster family Ages 11-18 with chronic

antisocial behavior, emotional

disturbance, and delinquency

6-9 months Intensive treatment and supervision of the youth in all spheres of life; daily phone contact, home visits, and in-home therapy

Project Hope Community Ages 12-22 with a mental health

or conduct disorder

12-18 months

Re-entry services

Trauma Affect Regula-tion: A Guide for Education and Therapy (TARGET)

Throughout juvenile justice

system

Juvenile Justice 2-12 weeks Strength-based approach designed to enhance self-regulation capacities compromised by psychological trauma

Mental Health

Treatment (cont’d.)

Wraparound Milwaukee Alternative to out-of-home placement

Ages 10-17 in dependency or

delinquency systems

Varies Case management with wraparound services

A-10




Re-Entry Adolescent Reentry Initiative

Detention and then community

Ages 16-18 Unknown Reentry services with a focus beyond job placement to educational and career goals


Detention through release

Heavy substance abusers 16 years

of age and younger

Throughout detention

and up to 5 months

following release

Cognitive behavioral therapy and strength-based, family-focused intervention

Criminal Conduct and Substance Abuse Treatment: Strategies for Self-Improvement and Change

Detention or community

Older adolescents and

adults

9-12 months

Cognitive-behavioral treatment

Moral Reconation Therapy (MRT)

Detention and community

Juvenile offenders with

substance abuse issues

Varies Cognitive-behavioral treatment, group discussion, written exercises, and taking steps to increase self-control

Motivational Enhancement Therapy (MET)

Community Adults Four sessions

Self-motivated substance abuse treatment under therapist’s care

Phoenix Academy Institution Juveniles 2-12 months

Therapeutic community


High school Ages 14-19 9-12 weeks Motivational-skills-decision-making curriculum, including coping and decision-making techniques, and education on drugs and substance abuse

Substance Abuse

Reclaiming Futures Systemwide Juveniles n/a Screening, assessment, followed by services

A-11

Table A5

Promising Programs (cont’d.)



Substance Abuse (cont’d)


Community Juveniles and adults with a

history of substance abuse

Varies Cognitive-behavioral treatment

Use of Force

Safe Crisis Management Juvenile Justice Corrections staff n/a Positive behavioral intervention, proactive prevention, de-escalation techniques, physical interventions as last resort, and post intervention strategies

Gulf Coast Trades Center (GCTC)

Residential Adjudicated youth ages 16-

18

200 hours Training in social skills and proper work attitudes, GED preparation, job referral, driver education, and job-specific skills

Project CRAFT Community and detention

Economically disadvantaged youth, ages 16-21, who are out

of school or incarcerated

840 hours, plus long-

term follow-up

Training in home-building; support services, and community service involvement; long-term aftercare services including ongoing treatment and coordination with public safety officials

Work Readiness

City University of New York (CUNY) Catch

Custody Offenders ages 16-18

Varies Outreach through workshops, seminars, and motivational programming focusing on academics and vocations; post-release programming services, including soft skills for seeking employment, use of campus library and computer lab facilities, and referral services


APPENDIX B COST DATA

B-1

Table B1 Crime Costs Per Offender for the Local Criminal Justice System

Type Unit Cost

Police (arrest and investigation)1 Arrest $76

Detention at Juvenile Hall2,3,4 Day $196

Probation (referral, intake, assessment)2,4 Day N/A

Court activities for felonies1 Case $1,122

Court activities for misdemeanors1 Case $1,453

Court activities for probation violations1 Case $444

Commitment to Camp Barrett4 Day $103

Commitment to JRF4 Day $185

Commitment to Residential Treatment (2000) 4,5 Day $158

Probation supervision for juveniles2,4 Day $9

Aftercare2,4 Day $15

Detention in county jail for adults6 Day $90

Commitment to prison for adults7 Day $94

Probation supervision for adults (if different than for juveniles) 2,4 Day $3

1 Based on figures compiled as part of SANDAG’s Probationers in Recovery evaluation using FY 1991-

1992 dollars and adjusted to 2000 dollars using the consumer price index (CPI). 2 Based on FY 2005-2006 dollars. 3 Includes detention screening. 4 SOURCE: Research Unit, San Diego County Probation Department 5 Cost per day for Residential Treatment is based on facilities with 10 or 12 Rate Classification Levels. 6 SOURCE: San Diego County Sheriff’s Department

7 Based on $34,150 annual cost per inmate in 2005 (Petersilia, 2006).

NOTE: Costs are based on salaries and benefits, as well as services and supplies for FY 2000-2001 unless otherwise noted. These categories include departmental overhead (i.e., personnel benefits, support staffing, equipment, and vehicle usage), county administrative overhead, and facility costs (i.e., building maintenance costs). Court activities include costs related to the district attorney, liaison, and defense counsel. All costs are adjusted for inflation to the same year in the analysis.

B-2

Table B2 Crime Costs for Victims

Productivity

MedicalCare/Ambalance

MentalHealth

Care

Police/Fire

Services

Social/ Victim

Services

PropertyLoss/

Damage

Subtotal:Tangible

LossesQualityOf Life Total

Fatal Crime

Rape,Assault, etc. $1,000,000 $16,300 $4,800 $1,300 $0 $120 $1,030,000 $1,910,000 $2,940,000 Arson Deaths 724,000 17,600 4,800 1,900 0 21,600 770,000 1,970,000 2,740,000 DWI 1,150,000 18,300 4,800 740 0 9,700 1,180,000 1,995,000 3,180,000

Child Abuse 2,200 430 2,500 29 1,800 10 7.931 52,371 60,000 Sexual Abuse (include. rape) 2,100 490 5,800 56 1,100 0 9,500 89,800 99,000 Physical Abuse 3,400 790 2,700 20 2,100 26 9,000 57,500 67,000 Emotional Abuse 900 0 2,700 20 2,100 0 5,700 21,100 27,000

Rape & Sexual Assault 2,200 500 2,200 37 27 100 5,100 81,400 87,000 (excluding Child Abuse)

Other Assault or Attempt 950 425 76 60 16 26 1,550 7,800 9,400 NCVS with Injury 3,100 1,470 97 84 46 39 4,800 19,300 24,000 Age 0 to 11 with Injury 2,800 1,470 100 84 46 39 4,600 28,100 33,000 Non-NCVS Domestic 760 310 81 0 0 39 1,200 10,000 11,000 No Injury 70 0 65 69 9 15 200 1,700 2,000

Robbery or Attempt 950 370 66 130 25 750 2,300 5,700 8,000 With Injury 2,500 1,000 65 160 44 1,400 5,200 13,800 19,000 No Injury 75 0 66 110 15 400 700 1,300 2,000

Drunk Driving 2,800 1,400 82 40 ? 1,600 6,000 11,900 18,000 With Injury 12,000 6,400 82 120 ? 3,600 22,300 48,400 71,000 No Injury 170 0 82 17 0 1,000 1,300 1,400 2,700

Arson 1,750 1,100 18 1,000 ? 15,500 19,500 18,000 37,500 With Injury 15,400 10,000 24 1,000 ? 22,400 49,000 153,000 202,000 No Injury 8 0 18 1,000 0 14,600 16,000 500 16,000

Larceny or Attempt 8 0 6 80 1 270 370 0 370

Burglary or Attempt 12 0 5 130 5 970 1,100 300 1,400

Motor Vehicle Theft or Attempt 45 0 5 140 0 3,300 3,500 300 3,700

NOTE: All estimates are in 1993 dollars. Totals may not equal sum of categories due to rounding. Major categories are in bold, subcategories listed under bold headings. Unknown information is listed with a question mark.

SOURCE: Miller, T.R., Cohen, M.A., & Wiersema, B. (1996). Victim’s Costs and Consequences: A New Look (NCJ-155282). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice Research Reports.

B-3

Table B3

Sliding Scale Fee Distribution, CYA Cohort California, 2000

Ward Category Distribution* CYA

Cohort Monthly

Fee

CYA Cohort Monthly

County Costs

I 0.8% 8 $150 $1,200

II 8.9% 89 $150 $13,350

III 6.2% 62 $150 $9,300

IV 26.4% 264 $150 $39,600

V 28.4% 284 $1,300 $369,200

VI 26.3% 263 $1,950 $512,850

VII 2.9% 29 $2,600 $75,400 TOTAL 100.0% 1,000 $1,020,900

*SOURCE: Juvenile Crime Trends, California Department of Corrections, 2000. CYA Ward category distributions are taken from Table 1 YOPB Categories and Sliding Scale.

Table B4

Sliding Scale Fee Distribution, Camp Barrett Cohort Camp Barrett Sample, San Diego County, 2005

Ward Category Distribution* Camp Barrett

Cohort Monthly

Fee

Camp Barrett Cohort

Monthly County Costs

I 0.6% 6 $150 $900

II 0.0% 0 $150 $0

III 1.3% 13 $150 $1,950

IV 7.5% 75 $150 $11,250

V 31.9% 319 $1,300 $414,700

VI 36.9% 369 $1,950 $719,550

VII 21.9% 219 $2,600 $569,400 TOTAL 100.0% 1,000 $1,717,750

* SOURCE: The 2005 CB sample was used to get the ward category distribution for the CB Cohort since the 2000 sample did not list offense type.

B-4

Table B5

Distribution of Adult Felony Offenses San Diego County, 2000

San Diego County Year 2000 Number

Total Adult Felony Arrests 27,143 1.00

Violent Offenses 8,781 0.32 Homicide 83 0.00 Forcible Rape 192 0.01 Robbery 821 0.03 Assault 7,567 0.28 Kidnapping 118 0.00

Property Offenses 6,552 0.24 Burglary 2,524 0.09 Theft 2,550 0.09 Motor Vehicle Theft 815 0.03 Forgery/Checks/Cards 631 0.02 Arson 32 0.00

Drug Offenses 8,935 0.33 Narcotics 2,706 0.10 Marijuana 755 0.03 Dangerous Drugs 5,392 0.20 Other 82 0.00

Sex Offenses 397 0.01 Lewd or Lacivious 134 0.00 Other 263 0.01

Other Offenses 2,478 0.09 Weapons 777 0.03 Driving Under the Influence 360 0.01 Hit and Run 62 0.00 Escape 18 0.00 Bookmaking 3 0.00 Other 1,258 0.05

Distribution

SOURCE: California Department of Justice, Criminal Justice Statistics

Center and SANDAG

B-5

Table B6 Time Served Model Parameters (Jail and Prison)

CYA and Camp Barrett Cohort Simulation Models

CYA Cohort Camp Barrett Cohort

Offense Type CYA Cohort

Felony Convictions

CB Cohort Felony

Convictions

Average Jail Months

Served*

Average Prison

Months Served*

Jail: Person Years

Served**

Prison: Person Years

Served**

Jail: Person Years

Served**

Prison: Person Years

Served**

Violent Crimes

Murder 3.33 2.82 10.8 56.7 1.21 4.46 1.03 3.78

Rape 5.43 4.61 7 68.4 1.28 8.78 1.09 7.44

Robbery 26.56 22.66 5.8 35.4 5.19 22.21 4.43 18.94

Assault 206.11 174.89 5.7 24.4 39.58 118.77 33.59 100.78

Kidnapping 4.73 4.01 7.3 68.4 1.16 7.64 0.99 6.48 Property Crimes

Burglary 105.07 89.22 4.3 22 15.22 54.59 12.93 46.36

Theft 98.62 83.76 3.7 15.4 12.29 35.87 10.44 30.46

Motor Vehicle Theft 23.49 20.06 4 15.5 3.17 8.60 2.70 7.34

Forgery/Checks/Cards 25.34 21.68 3.9 14.5 3.33 8.68 2.85 7.43

Arson 2.06 1.89 6.2 21.9 0.43 1.07 0.39 0.98 Sex Offenses 12.14 10.43 5.3 35.1 2.17 10.07 1.86 8.65 Other Crimes

Drug 306.42 259.94 4 16.3 41.29 117.96 35.03 100.06

Other 95.86 81.42 4.2 14.5 13.57 32.83 11.52 27.88

TOTAL 915.17 777.39 139.90 431.50 118.84 366.58

* SOURCE: California Department of Corrections (2001)

http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Reports_Research/Offender_Information_Services_Branch/Annual/TIME6/TIME6d2000.pdf

** Based on 2006 sentencing distributions from the San Diego County District Attorney's Office: 40% received jail and probation and 28% received prison.

B-6

Table B7 Time Served Model Parameters (Probation and Parole)


CYA Cohort CB Cohort

Offense Type CYA Cohort

Felony Convictions

CB Cohort Felony

Convictions

Average Probation Months Served*

Average Parole

Months Served**

Probation: Person Years

Served***

Parole: Person Years

Served***

Probation: Person Years

Served***

Parole: Person Years

Served***

Violent Crimes

Murder 3.33 2.82 36 36 7.15 2.83 6.06 2.40

Rape 5.43 4.61 36 36 11.68 4.62 9.90 3.92

Robbery 26.56 22.66 36 36 57.10 22.58 48.71 19.26

Assault 206.11 174.89 36 36 443.10 175.24 375.99 148.69

Kidnapping 4.73 4.01 36 36 10.17 4.02 8.62 3.41 Property Crimes

Burglary 105.07 89.22 36 36 225.87 89.33 191.81 75.86

Theft 98.62 83.76 36 36 212.02 83.85 180.06 71.21

Motor Vehicle Theft 23.49 20.06 36 36 50.50 19.97 43.12 17.05

Forgery/Checks/Cards 25.34 21.68 36 36 54.48 21.54 46.61 18.43

Arson 2.06 1.89 36 36 4.43 1.75 4.05 1.60 Sex Offenses 12.14 10.43 36 36 26.11 10.32 22.43 8.87 Other Crimes

Drug 306.42 259.94 36 36 658.74 260.52 558.82 221.00

Other 95.86 81.42 36 36 206.09 81.50 175.03 69.22

TOTAL 915.17 777.39 1967.44 778.08 1671.23 660.93

* SOURCE: San Diego County Probation Department ** Assumed to be 36 months since a source was not available.

*** Based on 2006 sentencing distributions from the San Diego County District Attorney's Office: 71% received probation and all prisoners (28%) were assumed to receive parole.

Person Years Served = convictions times the average probation or parole time in years.

B-7

Table B8 Additional Model Parameters


Model Parameters Value Source Cost Parameters Source

CYA Daily Cost $260.00 CDCR DJJ, 2006. p6. Camp Barrett Daily Cost $103.00 SD County Probation Department

CYA Aftercare Daily Cost $18.93 CDCR DJJ, Office of Research

CB Aftercare Daily Cost $12.35 SD County Probation Department

CYA Average Time Spent in Aftercare 630 days CDCR DJJ, Office of Research

CB Average Time Spent in Aftercare 121.75 days SD County Probation Department

CYA % Who Receive Aftercare 80% CDCR DJJ, Office of Research

CB % Who Receive Aftercare 72.50% SD County Probation Department Benefit Parameters

Ratio of convictions to arrests 0.5797 Greenwood, 1994. Table D.6. Ratio of Convictions to Arrests by Offense Type

Kidnapping 0.68 Greenwood, 1994. Table D.6.

Violent Crimes Murder 0.68 Greenwood, 1994. Table D.6.

Rape 0.48 Greenwood, 1994. Table D.6.

Robbery 0.53 Greenwood, 1994. Table D.6.

Assault 0.46 Greenwood, 1994. Table D.6.

Property Crimes Burglary 0.7 Greenwood, 1994. Table D.6. Theft 0.65 Greenwood, 1994. Table D.6. Motor Vehicle Theft 0.47 Greenwood, 1994. Table D.6. Forgery/Checks/Cards 0.65 Greenwood, 1994. Table D.6. Arson 0.61 Greenwood, 1994. Table D.6.

Sex Offenses 0.48 Greenwood, 1994. Table D.6. Other Crimes Greenwood, 1994. Table D.6.

Drug 0.58 Greenwood, 1994. Table D.6. Other 0.65 Greenwood, 1994. Table D.6.

Ratio of Arrests to Offenses

Violent Crimes

Murder 0.661 Greenwood, 1994. Table D.5. Rape 0.048 Greenwood, 1994. Table D.5. Robbery 0.067 Greenwood, 1994. Table D.5. Assault 0.169 Greenwood, 1994. Table D.5. Kidnapping 0.23625 Greenwood, 1994. Table D.5.

Property Crimes

Burglary 0.049 Greenwood, 1994. Table D.5. Theft 0.033 Greenwood, 1994. Table D.5. Motor Vehicle Theft 0.029 Greenwood, 1994. Table D.5. Forgery/Checks/Cards 0.04025 Greenwood, 1994. Table D.5. Arson 0.05 Greenwood, 1994. Table D.5.

Sex Offenses 0.048 Greenwood, 1994. Table D.5. Other Crimes 0.04025 Greenwood, 1994. Table D.5.

Percent of Felony Arrests that Receive Public Defender Services 41.90% SD County Public Defender's Office


APPENDIX C MAP

_

_ _

_

_

_

_

_

_

__

?j

A§AÀ

AA

A©

A©

A

Aª

?z

A×

A×

!"$

?j

AÀ

!"_$Aù

!"$

!"$

!"a$

!"a$

%&s(

!"a$

A§

?z

!"$

%&s(?h

A©

%&s(

!"a$

AÛ

A×

A×

?@5 6

¯ Imperial Beach

Coronado NationalCity

ChulaVista

Tijuana

MEXICOUNITED STATES

LemonGrove

La Mesa

El Cajon

Santee

Poway

San Diego

Solana Beach

Del Mar

Encinitas

Carlsbad

Oceanside

Vista

San Marcos

Escondido

5 0 52.5 Miles

Camp Barrett and JRF Youth Residences in San Diego County (2005)

Camp Barrett Youth

JRF Youth

Probation Offices

n = 267

n = 801

CAT/WINGs Offices

_

_

C-1

APPENDIX D REFERENCES

D-1

REFERENCES

Adkins, P. (2002). What’s a Parent to Do? Basic Strategies for Parents Who Care About the

Character of 9- to 11-Year Olds. Marina del Ray, CA: Character Counts! National Office. Aos, S. (2004), Washington State’s Family Integrated Transitions Program for Juvenile

Offenders: Outcome Evaluation and Benefit-Cost Analysis. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.

Aos, S., Phipps, P., Barnoski, R., & Lieb, R. (2001). The Comparative Costs and Benefits of Programs to Reduce Crime. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.

Armstrong, T. (2003). The Effect of Moral Reconation Therapy on the Recidivism of Youthful

Offenders: A Randomized Experiment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30(6), 668-687. Arthur, M.W., Hawkins, J.D., Pollard, J.A., Catalano, R.F., & Baglioni, A.J. (2002). Measuring Risk and

Protective Factors for Substance Use, Delinquency, and Other Adolescent Problems Behaviors: The Communities that Care Youth Survey. Evaluation Review, 26(6), 575-601.

Bidmon, J., Yellow Eagle Cadue, P., Enniss, K., Heffron, W.M., Moffitt, L., Nguyen, T., Sarette, R.,

Shafer, E., Unger, S., Waild, S., Wirschem, M. (2007). Juvenile Probation Officers Call for a New Response to Teen Alcohol Use and Dependency. Reclaiming Futures National Fellowship Report. Princeton, NJ: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Bosworth, K. & Espelage, D. (1995). Teen Conflict Survey. Bloomington, IN: Center for Adolescent

Studies, Indiana University. Brown, D., Maxwell, S., DeJesus, E., & Schiraldi, V. (2002). Barriers and Promising Approaches to

Workforce and Youth Development for Young Offenders. Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation.

Burke, C. (2007). 2006 Juvenile Arrestee Drug Use in the San Diego Region. CJ Bulletin. San

Diego, CA: San Diego Association of Governments. Burke, C., Ward, R., & Howard, L. (2007). Reducing Delinquency Through a Family-Based

Approach: Reflections. Annual Report. San Diego, CA: San Diego Association of Governments.

Burke, C., Howard, L., & Evangelou, T. (2005). A Project of Hope: Lindamood-Bell Center in a

School Project Final Evaluation Report. San Diego, CA: San Diego Association of Governments.

Butts, J.A. & Roman, J. (2007). Changing Systems: Outcomes from the RWJF Reclaiming

Futures Initiative on Juvenile Justice and Substance Abuse. Portland, OR: Reclaiming Futures National Program Office, Portland State University.

Byrne, J.M., Taxman, F.S., & Young, D. (2002). Emerging Roles and Responsibilities in the

Reentry Partnership Initiative: New Ways of Doing Business. Paper prepared for the National Institute of Justice.

D-2

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice (2006). Safety and Welfare Plan Implementing Reform in California. Sacramento, CA: Author.

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice (2005).

Reforming California’s Juvenile Corrections System: Farrell v. Hickman, Safety and Welfare Remedial Plan. [On-line]. Available at: http://www.cya.ca.gov/DivisionsBoards/DJJ/about/dec1report/4_safety_welfare.pdf

California Department of Corrections (2001). Time Served on Prison Sentence. [On-line].

Available at: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Reports_Research/Offender_Information_Services_Branch/Annual/TIME6/TIME6d2000.pdf

California Department of Corrections (2000). Juvenile Crime Trends. [On-line]. Available at:

http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Reports_Research/trends/index.html Catalano, R., Loeber, R., & McKinney, K.C. (1999). As cited in Academic Skills Enhancement. OJJDP

Model Programs Guide [On-line]. Available at: http://www.dsgonline.com/mpg2.5/academic_skills_enhancement.htm

Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice (2002). Press Release. Reducing Disproportionate

Minority Confinement: The Multnomah County Oregon Success Story and its Implications. [On-line]. Available at: http://www.cjcj.org/pubs/portland/portland.html

Center for the Promotion of Mental Health in Juvenile Justice (2003). Assessment Tools. [On-line].

Available at: http://www.promotementalhealth.org/atsectionI.htm Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (2004). Brief Strategic Family Therapy. [On-line].

Available at: http://modelprograms.samhsa.gov/pdfs/FactSheets/Bsft.pdf Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence (2006). Blueprints for Violence Prevention. [On-

line]. Available at: http://www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints Cisler, R., Holder, H.D., Longabaugh R., Stout, R., & Zweben, A. (1998). “Actual and estimated

replication costs for alcohol treatment modalities: Case study from Project MATCH.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 59(5):503-12.

Coalition for Juvenile Justice (2000). Handle with Care: Serving the Mental Health Needs of

Young Offenders. Washington, D.C.: Author. Cookston, J.T. (1999). “Parental Supervision and Family Structure: Effects on Adolescent Problem

Behaviors.” Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 32(1/2): 107-122. Duster, T. (1987). As cited in Barriers and Promising Approaches to Workforce and Youth

Development for Young Offenders Toolkit by Brown, D., Maxwell, S., DeJesus, E., & Schiraldi, V. (2002). Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation.

Elliott, D. S., Huzinga, D., & Ageton, S. S. (1985). As cited in Barriers and Promising Approaches

to Workforce and Youth Development for Young Offenders Toolkit by Brown, D., Maxwell, S., DeJesus, E., & Schiraldi, V. (2002). Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation.

D-3

Ford, J.D., Chapman, J.F., Hawke, J., & Albert, D. (2007). Trauma Among Youth in the Juvenile Justice System: Critical Issues and New Directions. Del Mar, NY: National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice (NCMHJJ) [On-line]. Available at: http://www.ncmhjj.com/pdfs/Trauma_and_Youth.pdf

Governor’s Budget (2007). Program Enhancements and Other Budget Adjustments: Division

of Juvenile Justice. [On-line]. Available at: http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/BudgetSummary/DCR/26635471.html

Greenwood P. (2006). Changing Lives: Delinquency Prevention as Crime-Control Policy.

Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Greenwood, P. (1994). Three Strikes and You're Out: Estimated Benefits and Costs of

California's New Mandatory-Sentencing Law. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Greenwood, P., Model, K., Rydell, C., & Chiesa, J. (1998). Diverting Children from a Life of

Crime: Measuring Costs and Benefits. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Hawkins, J. D., Herrenkohl, T. I., Farrington, D. P., Brewer, D., Catalano, R. F., Harachi, T. W., &

Cothern, L. (2000). Predictors of Youth Violence. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Juvenile Justice Bulletin.

Hemmens, C. & Stohr, M. (2000). The Two Faces of the Correctional Role: An Exploration of the

Value of the Correctional Role Instrument. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 44(3), 326-349.

Holman, B & Ziedenberg, J. (2006). The Dangers of Detention: The Impact of Incarcerating

Youth in Detention and Other Secure Facilities. Washington, D.C.: The Justice Policy Institute.

Howell, J.C. (Ed.) (1995). Guide for Implementing the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious,

Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs. U.S. Department of Justice.

JKM Training, Inc. (2006). Safe Crisis Management. [On-line]. Available at:

http://www.jkmtraining.com Keaton, S. (2006). Title V Quarterly Progress Report. San Diego, CA: San Diego Association of

Governments. Kirkwood, S. (2003). Practicing Restraint. Children’s Voice. Washington, D.C.: Child Welfare

League of America. Lambie, G. W., & Sias, S. M. (2006). “Motivational Enhancement Therapy: An effective approach for

counseling unmotivated adolescents.” In G. R. Walz, J. C. Bleuer, & R. K. Yep (Eds.), VISTAS: Compelling Perspectives on Counseling 2006 (pp. 37-41). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.

Lipsey, M. & Wilson, D. (1998). Effective Intervention for Serious Juvenile Offenders: A Synthesis of

Research. In R. Loeber & Farrington, D.P. (Eds.), Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful Interventions (pp. 313-345). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

D-4

Lipsey, M. (1992a). The Effect of Treatment on Juvenile Delinquents: Results from Meta-Analysis. In F. Losel, D. Bender, & T. Bliesener (Eds.), Psychology and Law: International Perspectives (pp. 131-143). New York, NY: Walter de Gruyter.

Lipsey, M. (1992b). Juvenile Delinquency Treatment: A Meta-Analytic Inquiry into the Variability of

Effects. In T.D. Cook, H. Cooper, D.S. Cordray, H. Hartmann, L.V. Hedges, R.J. Light, T. A. Louis, F. Mosteller (Eds.), Meta-Analysis for Explanation: A Casebook (pp. 83-127). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foudation.

Lindamood, P., Bell, N. & Lindamood, P. (1997). Sensory-Cognitive Factors in the Controversy Over

Reading Instruction. The Journal of Developmental and Learning Disorders, 1, 143 – 182.

Little, G. (2005). Meta-Analysis of Moral Reconation Therapy: Recidivism Results from Probation and

Parole Implementations. Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment Review, 14(1/2), 14-16. Lowenkamp, C. T., Latessa, E. J., & Holsinger, A. M. (2006). The Risk Principle in Action: What Have

We Learned From 13,676 Offenders and 97 Correctional Programs? Crime & Delinquency, 52 (1), 77-93.

Lublow, B. & Barron, D. (2000). Resources for Juvenile Detention Reform (Juvenile Justice

Bulletin, 18). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice. (2006).

“Creating Turning Points for Serious Adolescent Offenders: Research in Pathways to Desistance”. Issue Brief 2. [On-line]. Available at: http://www.adjj.org/downloads/7230issue_brief_2.pdf

Maguin, E. & Loeber, R. (1996). As cited in Academic Skills Enhancement. OJJDP Model Programs Guide [On-line]. Available at: http://www.dsgonline.com/mpg2.5/academic_skills_enhancement.htm

McCord, J. & Conway, K.P. (2005). Research in Brief: Co-Offending and Patterns of Juvenile

Crime. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice Research Reports [Online]. Available at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/210360.pdf

Milkman, H. & Wanberg, K. (2007). Cognitive Behavioral Treatment: A Review and Discussion

for Corrections Professionals. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Corrections. Miller, T.R., Cohen, M.A., & Wiersema, B. (1996). Victim’s Costs and Consequences: A New Look

(NCJ-155282). Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice Research Reports. Missouri Department of Social Services (2004). Division of Youth Services’ Annual Report [On-

line]. Available at: http://www.ds.mo.gov/re/dysar.htm Mitchell, J. & Palmer, E.J. (2004). Evaluating the “Reasoning and Rehabilitation” Program for Young

Offenders. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 39(4), 31-45. Morral, A.R., McCaffrey, D.F., & Ridgeway, G. (2004). Effectiveness of Community-Based Treatment

for Substance-Abusing Adolescents: 12-Month Outcomes of Youths Entering Phoenix Academy or Alternative Probation Dispositions. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 18(3), 257-268.

D-5

Moses, M.C., & Smith, C.J. (2007). Factories Behind Fences: Do Prison ‘Real Work’ Programs Work? National Institute of Justice Journal. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.

National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University (2005). The Importance

of Family Dinners II. New York, NY: Author. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (2000). Alcohol Alert Bulletin. No. 49. [On-

line]. Available at: http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa49.htm National Institute on Drug Abuse (2003). Brief Strategic Family Therapy for Adolescent Drug

Abuse. [On-line]. Available at: http://www.drugabuse.gov/TXManuals/BSFT/BSFTIndex.html

National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Practices (no date), Intervention Summary:

Multisystemic Therapy (MST) for Juvenile Offenders. Rockville, MD.: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). [On-line]. Available at: http://nrepp.samhsa.gov/programfulldetails.asp?PROGRAM_ID=102

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (2006). Model Programs Guide [On-line].

Available at: http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/programs/mpg.html Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (2000). Employment and Training for

Court Involved Youth. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (1999). Job Training for Juveniles: Project

CRAFT. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. [On-line]. Available at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/fs99116.pdf

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (1996). Desktop Guide to Good Juvenile

Detention Practice. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.

Petersilia, J. (2006). Understanding California Corrections. Berkeley, CA: California Policy

Research Center. Pullen, S. (1996). Evaluation of the Reasoning and Rehabilitation Cognitive Skills

Development Program as Implemented in Juvenile ISP in Colorado. Denver, CO: Colorado Department of Public Safety, Division of Criminal Justice.

Quinn, W.H. & Van Dyke, D.J. (2004). A Multiple Family Group Intervention for First-Time Juvenile

Offenders: Comparisons with Probation and Dropouts on Recidivism. Journal of Community Psychology, 32, 177-200.

Robbins, M. & Szapocznik, J. (2000). Brief Strategic Family Therapy. Washington, D.C.: Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Robinson, D., Simourd, L., & Porporino, F. (1992). Background to the Staff Commitment

Research Project. Ottawa, Ontario : Correctional Service of Canada, Research and Statistics Branch.

Roush, D. (1996b). Desktop Guide to Good Juvenile Detention Decisions. Washington, D.C.:

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

D-6

Roush, D. (1996a). Juvenile Detention Training Needs Assessment. Washington, D.C.: Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. San Diego County Probation Department (2004). Review of Placement Options: Residential

Treatment, California Youth Authority and Camp Barrett. San Diego, CA: Author. Sheridan, M.J. & Steele-Dadzie, T.E. (2005). Structure of Intellect and Learning Style of Incarcerated

Youth Assessment: A Means to Providing a Continuum of Educational Service in Juvenile Justice. The Journal of Correctional Education, 56 (4), 347-371.

Sherman, L. W., Gottfredson, D. C., MacKenzie, D. L., Eck, J., Reuter, P., & Bushway, S. D. (1997).

Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn't, What's Promising. A Report to the United States Congress (NCJ 171676). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.

Skeem, J.L. & Louden, J.E. (2005). Probationers with Mental Disorders: Informing Policy and Practice

for a Large, High Risk Population. Public Service Psychology, 30, 20-21. Skeem, J.L. (2004). PO-Probationer Relationships Revised. Irvine, CA: Author. Skowyra, K. & Cocozza, J. (2006). Blueprint for Change: A Comprehensive Model for the

Identification and Treatment of Youth with Mental Health Needs in Contact with the Juvenile Justice System. Del Mar, NY: The National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice Policy Research Associates, Inc.

Steinberg, L. & Dornbusch, S. M. (1991). As cited in Barriers and Promising Approaches to

Workforce and Youth Development for Young Offenders Toolkit by Brown, D., Maxwell, S., DeJesus, E., & Schiraldi, V. (2002). Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation.

Surgeon General (2001). Youth Violence Prevention: A Report of the Surgeon General [On-

line]. Available at: http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/youthviolence

Sussman, S., Dent, C.W., & Stacy, A.W. (2002). Project Towards No Drug Abuse: A Review of the

Findings and Future Directions. American Journal of Health and Behavior, 26, 354-365. Texas Youth Commission (2007). 2007 Review of Agency Treatment Effectiveness. Austin, TX:

Author. TFC Consultants, Inc. (2006). Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care: An Evidence-based

Solution for Youth with Behavioral Problems, Their Families, and Their Communities. [On-line]. Available at: http://www.mtfc.com

Turner, S., Fain, T., & Sehgal, A. (2005). Validation of the Risk and Resiliency Assessment Tool

for Juveniles in the Los Angeles County Probation System. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Vera Institute of Justice (2006). Adolescent Reentry Initiative. [On-line]. Available at:

http://www.vera.org/project/project1_1.asp?section_id=5&project_id=77

D-7

Vera Institute of Justice (2004). Adolescent Portable Therapy (APT). [On-line]. Available at: http://www.vera.org/publication_pdf/adolescent_portable_therapy.pdf

Washington State Institute for Public Policy (2006). Recidivism Findings for the Juvenile

Rehabilitation Administration’s Dialectical Behavior Therapy Program: Final Report. Olympia, WA: Author.

Wasserman, G., Ko S., & McReynolds L. (2004). Assessing the Mental Health Status of Youth in

Juvenile Justice Settings. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Juvenile Justice Bulletin.

Wiebush, R.G., Wagner, D., McNulty, B., Wang, Y., & Le, T. (2005). Implementation and Outcome

Evaluation of the Intensive Aftercare Program: Final Report. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Wofford, S. & Elliott, D. S. (1997). As cited in Barriers and Promising Approaches to Workforce

and Youth Development for Young Offenders Toolkit by Brown, D., Maxwell, S., DeJesus, E., & Schiraldi, V. (2002). Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation.

Zavlek, S. (2005). Planning Community-Based Facilities for Violent Juvenile Offenders as

Part of a System of Graduated Sanctions. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Juvenile Justice Bulletin.

Documents

Probation Evaluation, Assessment, and Cost-Effectiveness ...€¦ · FAST FACTS Probation Evaluation, Assessment, and Cost-Effectiveness (PEACE) Study Background: In 2005, the San