DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 448 261 UD 033 921

AUTHOR Chernoff, Nina W.; Watson, Bernadine H.TITLE An Investigation of Philadelphia's Youth Aid Panel: A

Community-Based Diversion Program for First-Time YouthfulOffenders.

INSTITUTION Public/Private Ventures, Philadelphia, PA.SPONS AGENCY William Penn Foundation, Philadelphia, PA.; Smith Richardson

Foundation, Inc., Greensboro, NC.PUB DATE 2000-00-00NOTE 20p.

AVAILABLE FROM Public/Private Ventures, One Commerce Square, 2005 MarketStreet, Suite 900, Philadelphia, PA 19103. Tel:215-557-4400; Fax: 215-557-4469; Web site:http://www.ppv.org.

PUB TYPE Reports Descriptive (141)EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Adolescents; Community Control; Community Programs;

*Delinquency Prevention; Juvenile Justice; Recidivism;*Youth Programs

IDENTIFIERS *Juvenile Crime

ABSTRACTThis report describes the Philadelphia Youth Aid Panel

(YAP), an alternative approach to juvenile justice. YAPs, also known asCommunity Accountability Panels, evolved from 1950s legislation empoweringpanels of community members to handle low-level juvenile offenders. The YouthAid Panel allows low-level juvenile offenders who have admitted their guiltto avoid facing the criminal justice system. YAP operates through theDistrict Attorney's Office and is open to youthful first-time, nonviolentoffenders. Juveniles and their parents go before a panel of communitymembers, and sentences are passed that includes: restitution, seriousself-reflection, and community service. Youths are assigned to monitors whomaintain contact throughout the process. Section 1 describes YAP and itsoperations, based on information from interviews and focus groups withyouths, panelists, parents, police officers, probation officers, and YAPstaff. Section 2 analyzes data on 300 1994 YAP youth tracked through thejuvenile and adult court record systems. Another 300 similar youth, arrestedfor low-level crimes in 1994 but not part of YAP, were also tracked. Thisprovided a context for examining YAP recidivism rates. Overall, most YAPparticipants were male, black youth age 14-17 years who committed weaponsviolations. Over 70 percent of participants completed the program: Within 3years, 29.9 percent of YAP completers were rearrested, compared with 44.4percent of non-YAP youth. Section 3 discusses promising aspects of YAP,offering recommendations on strengthening operations and future research.(SM)

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

HMTRETarm affou i anel:

U S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

fEtThis document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it.

Minor changes have been made toimprove reproduction quality.

Points of view or opinions stated in thisdocument do not necessarily representofficial OERI position or policy.

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS

BEEN GRANTED BY

t4. S 6641104

;vim. VeA-114/4

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

1

CI

E.0

I I I

I ' I

Chernoff

Bernardine Watson

n Inves i a ion o I ila el ia'sLop

, i ' h i1 'A

-:, , 1

ri,,ii,'', ',',_ 1, 2,1i 1-;,'" ;';,1 ''' 1. i 'L, l' '4 'r , ', ijA. t r,

, 1

',,,,r ,, ,,',','' ',' ii,,,,71'' ,,, ..

, 1 ,'0 0- ['1,,I! ,,1 "f-, ,- ,I; , I: ri ',, fi .1- 01,4 11,

Oti[4'qlaileit-JUlit,'211:4,'4,.. :.''.':ii',1; liCithim

A

Nina W. Chernoff

Bernardine H. Watson

Acicolow0edgmetrob

A number of people and organizationshelped make this report possible. The WilliamPenn Foundation and the Smith RichardsonFoundation funded this study. We are extremely

grateful for their support and for their interestin the issue of youth violence.

We owe a great deal of thanks to DistrictAttorney Lynne Abraham who supported thisstudy and made her staff available to workwith us. Michael Cleary and Meg Cinberg ofthe District Attorney's Office made themselvesavailable for questions and offered generousassistance throughout the data collection phaseof this study. Their input and openness madethe entire evaluation process possible. JohnDelaney was particularly helpful in reviewingand commenting on various drafts of this report.

Dwight Leevy of the Philadelphia Court ofCommon Pleas was an excellent informationresource and went out of his way to assistwith the data collection process. Ken Haleand John Buggy of the Philadelphia JuvenileCourt compiled names for the comparisongroup used in the study.

John J. Dilulio, Jr., a member of P/PV'sBoard of Directors, was responsible for bring-ing Philadelphia's Youth Aid Panel (YAP) toour attention, and helping to establish therelationship between P/PV and the DistrictAttorney's Office that made this work possible.

John also served as the principal investigatorof this study and provided editorial assistance.Beth Palubinsky, formerly of P/PV, was acritical member of the YAP team early in thestudy and participated in site visits and run-ning focus groups. Beth provided a great dealof insight during the writing of the report andwas an invaluable editor. Maxine Shermanwas responsible for overseeing the design,production and publication of the report.

The assistance of Nancy Resch, also for-merly of P/PV, was critical in the processingand analysis of the data used in this report.Nancy devoted many hours to analyzing thedata and ensuring the report's accuracy. JeanGrossman of P/PV also provided key assis-tance with data analysis, helped develop theevaluation design and assisted with one of thefocus groups. Her feedback and input wereinvaluable to the study.

We would also like to thank several othercolleagues who contributed to this study: GaryWalker, Joseph Tierney, Wendy McClanahanand Cindy Sipe reviewed and provided inputon various drafts; Natalie Jaffe edited thedocument; Darlene Woltman assisted withdata entry; and Carol Kersbergen proofreadthe final version.

Most important, this study would not havebeen possible without the generous contribu-tion of the individuals who participated infocus groups and interviews. It is from theircomments that we gained the understandingof YAP necessary to complete this work.

Femme:got iv

The UP Pirogrem 1

Pvegveirn Fhpdhrugs 7

Candles{ lovas and Recenunendegioras 9

Ropendt: Skit Monads 12

4

VevemegtEach year, over 8,000 juveniles are arrested inPhiladelphia. Most of these youthboth inPhiladelphia and throughout the countryarenonviolent, first-time offenders. In mostcases, the severest sanction imposed is someform of probation. However, more and moreexperts in the juvenile justice field agree thatthis approach does not serve these youthfuloffenders well. First, there is significant evi-dence that the formal justice system does notand cannot deal seriously with them. Becauseof cost considerations, they get little or noreal supervision on probation, which resultsin the worst of all possible outcomes for theyouth and for societyyoung offenders whobelieve that crime has no real consequences.Second, while these youth may not receivemuch attention during probation, they do havean official interaction with the court systemand thus end up with a "record," which is aserious stigma, especially for youth who havecommitted only minor offenses.

Therefore, juvenile justice systems incommunities across the country are exploringalternative approaches to dealing with youth-ful first-time, nonviolent offenders. Youth AidPanels (YAPs), also known as CommunityAccountability Panels (CAPs), conferencingboards or neighborhood conferencing com-mittees, represent an effort to divert youthfuloffenders from the formal justice system, andthey are growing in popularity in communitiesacross the country. Many of these programsprovide nonviolent, first-time offenders whoadmit their guilt with the opportunity to avoidinteraction with the formal justice system byfacing a group of volunteer community mem-bers, their victim, their parent(s) or guardianand a law enforcement official. The groupdetermines a sentence that typically requiresthree things of the youth: some form of victimrestitution, serious reflection on his or hercrime, and community service. These pro-grams are also being used as a componentof the federal Office of Juvenile Justice andDelinquency Prevention's balance andrestorative justice approach, a justice philoso-phy that attempts to balance the needs of theoffender, the victim and the community.

Youth Aid Panels and programs like themhave the potential to address several pressingproblems facing juvenile courts today. Bymeeting the processing, sentencing and moni-toring needs of low-level offenders, YAPsreduce the burden on juvenile courts, leavingthem better able to deal with the offenses ofviolent and serious juvenile offenders, andsparing them considerable expense. Throughthe panel process, low-level offenders arguably

experience a more significant response to theircrime than courts can currently offer, therebyhelping them to understand that their negativebehavior has consequences. In addition, victimshave more opportunity to participate in dealingwith the offense against them, and low-leveljuvenile offenders avoid the stigma andpotential limitations associated with a delin-quent record.

P/PV's interest in these alternativeapproaches to juvenile justice and this studyof the YAP program in Philadelphia wasprompted by our work on two issues centralto our overall agenda: the effect of positiveadult-youth relationships on the lives ofyoung people, an issue in which we haveinvested a decade of research; and community-based strategies for reaching and supportingvery high-risk youth. Our research indicatesthat well-structured, constructive relationshipswith caring nonrelated adults can have apositive effect on the behavior, school perfor-mance and family relationships of at-riskyouth. And in 12 communities across thecountry, we are currently studying the effec-tiveness of partnerships between faith-basedinstitutions and local law enforcement inworking with youth who have been in troublewith the law.

Philadelphia's YAP provides an importantcontext within which to continue investigatingthese issues. The program is operated out ofthe Philadelphia District Attorney's Officeand is an alternative sanction for first-time,low-level juvenile offenders. YAP provides anopportunity for eligible youth to choose to facea panel of volunteers from the communityinstead of a juvenile judge, thus allowingthem to keep their records clean. It has severalprogrammatic elements that our work in otherareas indicates are useful for working withhigh-risk youth, including the involvement ofcommunity adults; priority attention from

iv

local law enforcement, in this case theDistrict Attorney's Office; partnershipsbetween law enforcement and communityinstitutions; and the provision of support toyouth while they are held responsible fortheir behavior.

This report offers a close examination ofthe Philadelphia Youth Aid Panel. In Section1, we describe the YAP program and how itoperates, based on information collectedthrough interviews and focus groups withyouth, panelists, parents, police officers, pro-bation officers and YAP staff. In Section 2,we present and analyze data on 300 youthwho participated in YAP in 1994 and whowere tracked through the juvenile and adultcourt record systems; 300 similar youth whowere arrested for low-level crimes in 1994 butwho did not participate in YAP were alsotracked. This comparison group does not allowfor definitive conclusions on the effectivenessof the YAP program, but it does provide acontext for examining the recidivism rates ofYAP participants. In Section 3, we discuss thepromising aspects of the YAP program andmake recommendations about how operationscan be strengthened and what further researchon YAP is needed. It is our hope that theinformation contained in this report will beuseful to the Philadelphia District Attorney'sOffice and its community partners as wellas to other communities seeking alternativestrategies for working with young, low-leveloffenders. Any organization interested inlearning more about Philadelphia's YAPprogram may contact:

Michael ClearyAssistant District AttorneyPhiladelphia District Attorney's Office1801 Vine Street, Room 153MPhiladelphia, PA 19103(215) 686-6310michael.cleary@phila.gov

6

DUStCORT

The YAP program evolved from legislationenacted in New Jersey in the 1950s thatempowered panels of community membersto deal with low-level juvenile offenders.Delaware County was the first in Pennsylvaniato begin a modified version of New Jersey's"juvenile court conference committees," fol-lowed by the Bucks County juvenile court,which further modified and fully implementedthe YAP program. The Bucks County model,later adopted by Delaware County, made itsway to Philadelphia via justice innovators inthe city's District Attorney's Office.

With over a decade of experience as ajuvenile probation officer, Michael Cleary, anAssistant District Attorney (ADA), was con-vinced of the need for a program like YAP:

"I knew," he recalls, "that I wasspending all my time with the most

serious youth offenders and wasnot able to hold the other kids

accountable. This failure to moni-tor is a factor in their future crimeand delinquency."

Since it was impossible to hire the legionsof probation officers needed to supervise thelow-level offenders, the YAP model repre-sented an exciting alternative. Instead ofgoing to court, first-time offenders could facea panel of community volunteers who, afterreviewing the case and questioning the youth,would devise a "contract" intended to teachthe youth a lesson and introduce him or her toa positive activity or association. In addition,according to Cleary, YAP is a much lessexpensive alternative to court:

The court cost and the cost to the

probation system for dealing withthese kids is exorbitant. With the

panels, the only costs are for me,our law clerk and six to eighthours a month from the policeofficers involved.

The first panel was established in May1987, and every four months after that theDistrict Attorney's Office trained a freshgroup of volunteers. By the early 1990s,

every police district in Philadelphia had afully operating YAP. By mid 2000, there were27 panels operating in the city.

Uhe FulnessSelection of YouthToday, YAP still operates out of the DistrictAttorney's Office directly from the desk ofMichael Cleary. He receives each morning'slist of juvenile arrests and decides which ofthe young offenders will be considered eligi-ble for YAP.

Originally the program accepted only thoseaccused of a misdemeanor for the first time.But over the years the ADA has extended theYAP offer to an increasing number of youthaccused of felony offenses in cases where noweapon was involved and no injury was sus-tained by the victim. The program has beenexpanded beyond misdemeanor offenses in aneffort to give higher-risk youth an opportunityto take advantage of the program. Offers areoccasionally extended to youth accused ofsecond offenses, particularly if both chargeswere minor and the first charge was with-drawn or dismissed in court.

Still, YAP was never designed to deal withhardcore criminals. Therefore, cases thatreflect harsher crimesalthough they mayofficially be eligibleare weeded out. Forexample, youth charged with selling drugs,using guns or other lethal weapons, or caus-ing serious bodily harm are rejected. Thesame goes for chronic truants. If a review ofschool records (a printout sent to the ADA'soffice by the Philadelphia School District)indicates that a youth is not enrolled inschool, he or she is immediately crossed offthe list. According to Cleary:

YAP is designed for youth that the

District Attorney's Office feels canbe turned around by volunteers intheir own neighborhood.

Finally, Cleary passes the significantlypared-down list to the District Attorney's lawclerk, who begins another filtering process.The list is reviewed again to reconfirm thatthe youth have no prior arrests by using thepolice photo numbers to search the juvenile

'7

records system. Youth's names are also lookedup in the YAP database to make sure theyhave not already been through the program.(Because youth who complete YAP have theirrecord cleared, it is possible that a juvenilecould reappear on the eligibility list falsely asa first-time offender.) If a youth clears bothchecks, the clerk looks at his or her addressand selects a district and a date for the hearing.The new list of eligible candidates is deliveredto the police liaison officer responsible forinterviewing YAP candidates and offeringthem the opportunity to participate in theprogram. This officer operates out of thePhiladelphia Youth Study Center, the deten-tion center for delinquent youth. The officerinterviews the youth the next business dayafter the arrest. Those youth who were cutfrom the YAP list because of their delinquentor school records or as a result of the lawclerk's searches are referred to court.

Several other people contribute to theselection of the YAP candidates as well, either

by making recommendations or throughrejections. Occasionally the school districthas information about an offense thatoccurred on school property that was notavailable to the District Attorney's Officewhen the arrest was reviewed. In thosecases the Assistant General Counsel for thePhiladelphia School District can recommendthat a youth not be offered YAP. The policeliaison officer at the Youth Study Center notonly helps identify young people who shouldnot be in the program but also calls theDistrict Attorney's Office when he comesacross a youth who was not considered a can-didate for YAP and perhaps should be, thoughthe officer with whom we spoke said thatCleary "rarely misses one." At the panel hear-ing, the panelists also have the authority todismiss youth from the program, and eachpanel has developed its individual tolerancelevel. Cleary says that they try to select pan-elists who can see through the negative atti-tudes sometimes presented by the juveniles;however, youth are at times referred to courtfor tardiness and disrespectful behavior. Ofcourse, the youth themselves also play a rolein the selection process, both when theydecide to enter the program and if theychoose to leave it after experiencing the hear-ing or learning the details of their contract.

While Cleary might not be the only oneediting the YAP roster, every aspect of theprogram bears his stamp. His early morningdesignations essentially determine the makeupof the youth group that will participate inYAP, and any subsequent rejection or inclu-sion decisions are made by people trained byhim. He is also an exceptionally involvedmanager: he visits the panels, conducts thepanelist training, visits many youth beforetheir hearing to encourage them to attend, andis available to the panelists to answer ques-tions. The panelists, police officers and otherprofessionals who work with the program fre-quentl; mentioned his name in their discus-sion of YAP, and quite a few referred to rulesor advice he had provided. Cleary's personalinvolvement in YAP reflects the importance ofthe program in the District Attorney's Office,something Cleary believes is critical to thesuccess of these types of programs.

The Intake ProcedureIntake is a very important part of the YAPprocess since it provides yet another opportu-nity to make sure that the youth who areselected as eligible for YAP on paper areactually a good fit for the program. Thepolice liaison officer gives careful attention toeach case that comes before him, though herecites (almost word for word) the same pitchin every interview. He verbally verifies thatthis is a first arrest and then reads the chargesheet aloud. Putting down the paper, he looksdirectly at the young person and asks, "Is thistrue?" This allows the youth a brief opportu-nity to give his or her version of the eventand allows the intake officer to determine ifthe youth considers him or herself guilty ofthe crime. If the juvenile does not believe orrefuses to admit that he or she is guilty, theofficer ends the interview immediately andrefers the case to court. YAP's intention is toprovide a community response to an admittedcrime, not a community trial for a suspectedone, and discussions of guilt or innocence arenot part of the panel proceedings.

If the youth admits guilt, the police liaisonofficer turns his attention to the adult who hasaccompanied the youth, often the mother, andasks about the young person's behavior at

home and in school. If the youth sounds dis-ruptive and the adult seems to be at his or herwit's end, the officer may decide to send thecase to court.

YAP only considers cases in which theyouth shows some evidence of support from aresponsible adult. If the youth arrives withouta responsible adult, but has a sufficient reason(such as the illness of a parent or guardian),the case can be continued for the appearanceof an adult. If the youth does not have a suffi-cient reason and no responsible adult appearsto be available, the case is likely to be referredto court. Cleary points out that the adult whoshows up with the youth only has to meet onerequirement: genuine interest in and supportof the youth that the panel can build on.

The police liaison officer may also referthe case to court if he feels that the youthhas a bad attitude or does not appear to feelremorseful. Again, according to Cleary, YAPis intended for youth that "the communitycan handle."

Still looking directly at the parent, theofficer begins his usual speech: "I representthe District Attorney's Office, and you havethe option to enter a program called YouthAid Panel. If your child does everything he orshe is supposed to do in this program, therecord will be wiped clean. There are YouthAid Panels all over the city. They are madeup of ordinary citizens who meet in policestations and hospitals on weeknights at 7:00p.m." Turning toward the youth, he continues:"They will ask you what you did, why youdid it, and then they will show you a betterway to lead your life. They will ask yourmother about your behavior, your grades andany positive activities you may be involvedwith. It is then their duty to come up with apunishment for you to do. They may ask youto write a 1,000-word essay or, if there is anolder gentleman in your neighborhood, theymay have you run errands or do chores forhim, one day, maybe an additional day,maybe an additional day. If you do what youare supposed to do, then the whole situationwill be over and you won't have a criminalrecord. So, what do you want to do? Go intothe program or go to court?"

2

Choosing YAPAlmost all youth who are offered the opportu-nity choose to go to YAP. The police liaisonofficer estimates that in only about "1 out of100 cases" is the YAP offer refused. Thisusually happens when the adult is having somuch trouble with the child that he or shewants the youth to be placed in an institutionfor delinquents. Generally, it is not that parentswant to see their children receive a severepunishment, but they may want their child tohave more supervision than they or even YAPcan provide. In a few instances, despite thefact that the youth admits guilt, the parents oradult insists that the child is innocent andwants the case taken to court where it can betried. These cases are simply referred to court.

If a youth agrees to participate in the YAPprogram, the police liaison officer calls thelaw clerk for the hearing date and district thathad been reserved for the youth earlier. Youthare usually assigned to hearings in their ownpolice districts, but busy districts rotate witheach other, so youth are often sent to neigh-boring districts.

Both the youth and parents that we spokewith in focus groups chose YAP primarilybecause of the opportunity to clear theirrecord. Even the younger youth were clearabout the consequences of a delinquent record,whether for part-time jobs or athletic scholar-ships. Young people were also afraid to go tocourt and risk being "locked up" in a correc-tional facility. One young man recalled:

8

Back when I was in elementary

school we had a judge that used tocome to school every year and he

used to tell us if he ever seen us in

his court or whatever, he said he

not going to play with us, he justgonna say, "Bring your toothbrushand a fresh pair of drawers! "...A

lot of people that I know now,

they've been telling me that they

just been getting that judge andthey said he just been sending them

away and stuff. I ain't seen peoplein months!

YAP and the PoliceIn addition to the police liaison officer, twoother types of police officers are involved inYAPthe officer who arrested the youngoffender and the Crime Prevention Officer(CPO) who actually serves on the panel intheir district. Up until January 1999, thearresting officer had a somewhat limited role.After making an arrest, he or she could rec-ommend the youth for YAP by writing "can-didate for YAP" on the complaint fact sheetafter first checking with the ADA on duty thatthe youth had no previous arrests. However,several CPOs pointed out that most of thearresting officers in their districts did notknow about the program and were thusunlikely to take it into account when arrestingyoung people for minor crimes. As a resultthe District Attorney's Office has taken stepsto involve the arresting officer more in theYAP process. Now an arresting officerreceives a letter from the program about theyouth's participation in YAP, and the officeris also invited to attend the hearing, provideadditional information about the charge andcontribute ideas for the contract. Conversely,CPOs have always had a very significant rolein the YAP process. Their responsibilitiesgenerally include more prevention and victimassistance than those of a regular officer, andtheir panel assignment is typically amongtheir regular duties. Most of the CPOs wespoke with had expressed interest in the panelposition to their supervisor, though a fewwere assigned without being consulted. OneCPO rolled her eyes when asked if she hadvolunteered to serve on the panel and explaineddryly that it came with her position, butanother CPO said she loved the work andplans to serve on a panel when she retires.

The CPOs on the panels play a significantrole both in setting the tone and in adminis-trating the hearings. The CPOs are responsiblefor liaison with the District Attorney's Office;they receive the charge sheets from the lawclerk for each new youth and keep track ofthe contract paperwork for the panel. CPOsalso set up the room each night the panelmeets; they are the first to greet the youth andparents and can help explain the charges tothe panel. They are also helpful in that, asuniformed officers, they lend an air of

formality and seriousness to the hearings andhave the authority to subdue agitated victimsor defendants. As one CPO described:

I just kind of set the mood, lettingthem know that even though we're

not at [Family Court] and there'snot a judge there with a robe on,you're still in the police district.I'm the liaison between them, andI'm gonna have law and order. Imean, I don't walk around likeWyatt Earp with a big brim hatand a stogie in my mouth, but we

start right from the beginning let-ting them know that this is a seri-ous matter.

Officially, all CPOs serve the same func-tion, but officers on different panels havevarying definitions of their role. One CPOwe spoke with serves as a full panelist, ful-fills monitoring responsibilities, and admitsthat her recommendations tend to carry moreweight in the hearing process because she isan officer. Another CPO does not act as amonitor or even as a panelist: "My job isreally just to work with the secretary andour chairperson." The CPOs were typicallydescribed as indispensable by the panelists:"[Our CPO] kept us up-to-date...He'd kindof like make our job easier, and then justhis presence there made a difference, a lotof difference."

Pafro3Ilizas

SelectionThe ADA has found that the most reliablemethod of advertising for panelist volunteersis word of mouth, but newspaper and radioadvertisements are also placed. This combina-tion of recruitment tactics seems to draw aracially and occupationally diverse group ofcandidates; in the words of a panelist trainerfrom Good Shepherd, a neighborhood media-tion house, applicants include everyone from"priests to cab drivers." Gender diversity hasbeen a problem. To date, panelists have tendedto be women and the District Attorney's Office

3 9

is working on ways to attract more men, par-ticularly men of color, to the program.

The initial screening includes an exhaus-tive criminal records and references check,and confirms that the applicant is at least 18years old and a resident of Philadelphia. Twomonths before the training is scheduled tostart, the applicants who have come throughthe first screening are contacted by phoneand, if still interested in participating, arescheduled for an interview. The interview isconducted by a three-person team made up ofan ADA, a probation officer and a CPO. Theinterviews were described by the panelists assomewhat perfunctory, designed only to weedout those conspicuously lacking in commonsense or a sincere desire to be involved in theprogram, or those who are overly committedand too busy to participate. Once panelistscomplete training, the time commitmentincludes two nights per month, two to threehours each for hearings and about two tothree hours per month for monitoring YAPparticipants. The interview results are screened

by the ADA and the Deputy DA, who thensend all approved candidates' names to theDepartment of Public Welfare for a check ofchild abuse records.

The panelists we spoke with volunteeredfor a range of reasons: in memory of a slainson, as a continuation of other work withtroubled young people, because of a son'sexperience with a program similar to YAP,or because of a desire to work directly withyouth. One constant was the belief, in thewords of one panelist, that "young peoplemake mistakes and kids deserve a secondchance." As another panelist explained:

Everybody deserves a chance, even

if you did the crime...In our societysometimes a good child could get

with the wrong element and because

of peer pressure do somethingjust because they wanna be partof the group.

TrainingBoth new CPOs and panelists attend initialtraining consisting of five two-hour sessions.These sessions are meant to be convenient forthe panelists, who can elect to attend a ses-sion in the Family Court Building in CenterCity, Philadelphia, or in a police station intheir neighborhood.

The sessions are designed to give newpanelists a thorough briefing on panel opera-tions. The District Attorney's law clerk, theADA and the Deputy District Attorney intro-duce the YAP concept, provide an overviewof the juvenile justice system, explain thescreening process used for juvenile referralsand the paperwork generated at a hearing, andshow a video of a simulated YAP hearing. Acurrent panel chair gives his or her perspectiveon panel practices, and a police officer is onhand to explain the juvenile arrest procedure.Panelists participate in interactive exercises inwhich they play the roles of youthful offenders,victims and parents. They also learn to writeand develop outside resources for the youthcontracts.

Since 1997, the training has included asession on working with crime victims andincorporating them into the YAP process.Trainers from Good Shepherd help the volun-teers develop skills in mediation, interviewing,listening and communicating, consensusbuilding and decision-making, and effectivedelegation and management. The training isan additional opportunity for the DistrictAttorney's Office to weed out less appropriatepanelists; no-shows and unsuitable candidatesare not invited back for the graduationceremony. Panelists gave the initial trainingmixed reviews. Many agreed with the panelistwho said:

It's just like going to college andeverything is by the book, and

when you get out it's altogetherdifferent. I don't think the training

is really relevant to what we do.

New panelists are assigned to the panel intheir home district, unless another district isunderstaffed and needs volunteers. Each panelhas a chair responsible for running the hearingand a secretary who records the contract andhelps the CPO keep track of all active cases.

When a chair or secretary leaves a panel, anew officer is selected through what Clearydescribes as "a long and involved process."Outgoing officers make recommendations,and input is provided by the ADA, the lawclerk and the Good Shepherd trainers. Newpanelists are contacted approximately sixmonths after they begin serving to check ontheir progress and are approached with arequest for membership renewal after a year.Every two or three years, the District Attorney's

Office holds an awards ceremony to recognizeoutstanding panelists.

Good Shepherd also runs annual advancedand executive training sessions for continuingpanelists and executive panelists (chairs andsecretaries), respectively. The training includesethics games, role playing (where controver-sial situations in panel hearings are raised anddiscussed) and work on bias perception.According to the trainer, "the biggest issue inadvanced training is negotiating the shift fromindividuals' world views to group consensus."This training seems to be popular, becausepanelists with some experience can participatemore fully. It is also an opportunity for pan-elists and CPOs to share their experienceswith other districts. One CPO explained thatshe enjoyed the advanced training because "Ilike to listen to stories of other CPOs, howthey're running their panel, if they're havingthe same problems that I am...You talk aboutdifferent ways of handling different situations,and you share ideas."

Panel SupervisionThe progress of the panels is personallysupervised by the ADA and a law clerk. Thetwo split the 27 panels between them, and eachpanel is visited quarterly. During the visits,these two review caseloads, answer questionsand observe panels in action. The law clerkexplained that when she visits a panel shereviews "procedural things" with the panelistsand, while observing a hearing, evaluates theappropriateness of the panelists' questions,the way the panelists talk to the youth, theamount of time they spend on each case, andthe contract terms. All of the panelists andCPOs we spoke with described both the ADA,and particularly the law clerk, as accessibleand helpful.

4

When the program was first established,there was a Youth Aid Advisory Council thatmet to review the program's progress, to reviewthe roster of the latest graduating classes ofpanel members and current panel contracts,and to approve or disapprove disciplinaryactions for panelists. (Panelists are asked toleave as a result of chronic absences, violatedconfidentiality or inappropriate demeanor dur-ing panel sessions.) Cleary said the councilwas instrumental when the program was justbeginning, but it was disbanded in 1993because the program was working well andrunning smoothly. He now contacts old mem-bers informally if he has any concerns.

WicansVictims are officially a part of the YAP process,

but their actual involvement has been minimal.Prior to January 1999, victims received anotification letter from the District Attorney'sOffice that explained the YAP process, askedthem to send in requests for restitution andinvited them to attend the hearing. The lawclerk who sent the letters said that before1999, although most sent in a request forrestitution, only about one-sixth attended thehearing. It is interesting to note that no men-tion was made of victims in either the youthor panelist focus groups.

Convinced of the importance of victiminvolvement, the District Attorney's Officehas recently focused on increasing victimparticipation. According to the law clerkresponsible for the new victim componentof the YAP program:

We had to be more aggressive

about involving victims because

they didn't know they could be

involved. They didn't know their

rights and responsibilities.

Beginning in 1999, attached to the victimnotification letter is an impact statement thatasks what the victim would like to see happenand if the victim has any suggestions forcommunity service work for the offender; italso requests a description of the "physical,emotional, and/or financial impact" of thecrime. The law clerk contacts the victim by

1 0

phone if there is no response after one week.Even those who choose not to attend thehearing receive a letter informing them thatthe offender has entered into a contract withthe panel, and victims can call the DistrictAttorney's Office to learn the specifics of thecontract. The law clerk estimates that three-quarters of the victims return the impact state-ment and approximately half of the victimsnow choose to attend the hearing. The clerkalso said that panels have begun to includemore demands for restitution in contracts andthat the juveniles are paying up. Further, forthe past four years, initial and ongoing pan-elist training has included victim awareness.

The NearingPanels meet twice a month, and each sessionis usually two hours long, allowing one hourfor each of two hearings. In our sample of300 youth, the hearing typically occurred twomonths after the intake interview, althoughCleary said that since the study the creationof additional panels in busy districts hasreduced that interval to one month. Most ofthe youth in the sample (84.3%) showed upfor the hearing, and those who failed toappear without a good excuse were automati-cally referred to court.

Before the first hearing begins, panelistshave administrative time to review the policepaperwork on the case they are about to hearand to discuss other cases that are currentlybeing monitored. When they are ready for thefirst case, the CPO brings the youth and par-ent(s) into the room and seats them at a longtable facing the panelists. One CPO said thatin preparing youth for the hearing he usuallyexplains to them up front:

When you come in here, you can'tbe getting smart, you can't chewany gum, you can't be slouching oranything like that. You gotta show

respect. If they do come in here

with an attitude, we check 'em atthe front door.

The hearing usually begins with the secre-tary taking down the youth's biographicalinformation, followed by a reading of thecharges by the CPO or the panel chair. Theyouth is then asked to describe the crime andexplain why he or she was arrested. If thecrime victim is present, he or she is also invitedto speak. The panelists then begin questioningthe youth in a manner described in the ADA'sOrganizational Manual as "informal and dig-nified." This often translates into a confronta-tional style designed to make the youth aware"of the consequences involved, that whatthey did was wrong." As one panelist said,"Sometimes I tell them, I say, you screwedup. You have to be pretty honest with thembecause they did screw up."

Most volunteers seemed to agree withthe panelist who argued that, "A little fearnever hurt anybody. So, I put the fear of Godin them."

The ContractBesides trying to engender a sense of remorseand responsibility to the community, the pan-elists ask questions relevant to developing asuitable contract for the youth. They ask aboutthe youth's interests, positive and negativeactivities, needs and future plans. Panelistsroutinely say they want to help the youth findsomething they are interested in and havethem reflect on what they did rather than justpunish them. After the panelists feel the youthhas recognized his or her error and after theyhave enough information to formulate thecontract, the young person is asked to leavethe room. Panelists then speak with the parent;sometimes parents are unwilling to disclosetheir fears in front of their child and oftenneed a chance to be heard and supported. Asone parent said:

When I got there, it was kind of

embarrassing, you know; you feelembarrassed 'cause you're the par-ent and you're thinking, God, whatdid I do wrong, why is my kid act-

ing like this?

One long-time panelist explained that:

A lot of parents feel they need the

intervention of somebody else to

back up what it is they would like

their children to do and how theywant them to change course.

After the parent has a chance to speak, thepanel meets privately to design a contract:80.9 percent of the sample who attended theirhearing were awarded a contract; 19.1 percentwere re-listed to courtmost because theywere not accompanied by parents, but a fewbecause they had negative attitudes or claimedinnocence. Panelists try to construct contractsthat address the interests of the youth in aninnovative mannerrequests for songs orartwork appeared more than oncebut certainassignments remain popular across panels.Almost all youth in the sample (83.5%) wereinstructed to write at least one essay, typicallyeither a reflective piece or a book report.Roughly half (48.1%) were assigned commu-nity service, and 50.2 percent were instructedto attend a class at the Philadelphia ServiceInstitute (PSI). PSI holds Saturday classes onsubjects like retail theft and disorderly conduct.Youth pay $25 to attend the four-hour class,which covers the laws surrounding the crimeand the possible consequences. In 1995, thepanels began sending youth to the GoodShepherd Conflict Resolution Programbecause of its exclusive focus on youth, andthey now rarely use PSI. A little over one-fourth of the sample (28.6%) had to providea verbal or written apology to the victim;28.1 percent had to improve their attendanceor grades at school; 14 percent had to makeamends to their parent(s), either by apologizingor taking them out to dinner; 12.4 percent hada curfew enforced; 11.1 percent were respon-sible for acquiring a library card or reading atleast one book; 5 percent of the youth in thesample were required to pay restitution.

If necessary, panelists can provide youthand their families with other kinds of sup-ports. Youth can be referred to the Office ofDrug and Alcohol Abuse and the city's delin-quency prevention services (which providehomework assistance and other after-schoolprogramming). Also, youth and their familiescan be referred for counseling to the Department

of Human Services. About 10 percent ofyouth and their families are referred for thesesupport services each month.

Seventy-one percent of the youth in thesample completed their contract, which typi-cally lasted two and a half months. When theyouth completes the conditions of the contract,he or she receives an official completion noticefrom the District Attorney's Office. Somepanels choose to have the youth return to thepanel for a brief meeting, and all insist thatthe work or proof of work that was completedbe turned in to the monitor. The panel thensends the paperwork, via the CPO, to the lawclerk at the District Attorney's Office. Thereis no ceremony or congratulations. The youth,in the words of the ADA, are "just doing whatthey're supposed to do." In fact, both theDistrict Attorney's Office and the panelistsmaintain that the youth were fortunate simplyto enter the YAP program and that a cleanrecord is a sufficient reward.

Monitoring, Not MentoringWhen the panelists have drawn up a contractand determined a discharge date, the youthand parents return to the room. The contractis read aloud, and the youth can accept orreject it. If the youth accepts, he or she is thenassigned a monitor who was selected by thegroup when the youth was out of the room.The monitor is responsible for contacting theyouth at least twice a month by phone or inperson. Panelists say that the frequency ofcontact fluctuates with each case. The monitoris responsible for seeing that the youth fulfillsthe conditions of the contract and nothingmore. Infrequently, the monitor develops amore personal relationship with the youth, butthat practice is commonly understood to lead to"burnout." During training, the ADA instructspanelists that their job is to "monitor, not men-

tor," and most take this message to heart.

According to one panelist:

[A monitor] is someone who caresabout this person but is not a closefriend. I don't want them disap-pointed that I'm not going to stayin their lives. And I don't want tostay in their lives. I want to do

what's best for them at thatmoment, and I think it's a mistake

to get overly involved.

Ifangt's Man en UPAlmost every youth we spoke with indicatedthat the YAP charge represented their firstarrest; most claim to have spent between 10and 28 hours in jail. Therefore, it is not sur-prising that while these youth recognized theimpact the YAP experience had on them, mostattributed that impact to the arrest and interac-tion with the police rather than to the panelistsor the contract. When asked if the YAP experi-ence changed him, one youth responded:

Getting arrested changed me...Ijust said I ain't gonna do it nomore 'cause I ain't tryin' to getarrested no more and put my mom

and dad through that.

One mother, comparing the impact of thearrest with the impact of the program, attrib-uted her daughter's changed behavior to"mostly gettin' arrested, 'cause it scared thelife out of her, it really scared her."

Further, while the panelists we interviewedspoke strongly about their reasons for involve-ment in the program, it was not clear to whatextent the participating youth we spoke withwere aware of the charitable motivation ofmost panelists. Few youth in the focus groupsseemed to relate to the panelists as fellowcommunity members or volunteers; some eventhought the panelists were being paid.

6

Interestingly, some of the youth said thatthey wanted more recognition for the workthey had done under their contract as well aswith their monitors. One youth, clearly disap-pointed, reported:

When I went back, some guy came

out...I told him who I was, I gave

him all the slips I had, gave himeverything, my report card, every-

thing. He was like, "I'll take that,"and he goes, "OK, bye." Like it

was nothin'.

Other youth we interviewed seemed towant more mentoring from the YAP monitor.Many agreed with a young man who said:

12

[I want a monitor who would] stopthrough and check on you, talk, sitaround...somebody to talk over

your problems, what you been

going through and stuff like that

'stead of somebody that just speaks

to you over the phone.

I I

In an effort to take a closer look at YAP andthe program's effects on participants, we wereinterested in answering three questions:

Who gets into YAP?Who completes YAP?Who gets rearrested?

To answer these questions, we reviewedjuvenile and court records for 300 youth whoparticipated in YAP in 1994; and to providesome context and comparison for the behaviorof this sample we also collected data on 300youth who had been arrested for first-time,nonfelony offenses in 1994 but were notselected for YAP. This nonYAP comparisongroup contains individuals who were declaredineligible for YAP because they lacked familysupport, they were not enrolled in school, ortheir crime was considered too serious. Thesample also includes youth who were consid-ered eligible for YAP but who failed to appearat the hearing or the intake interview, claimedinnocence, appeared without a parent at thehearing or intake interview, or were not offereda contract by their panel because their attitudewas considered offensive.

It should be noted that the comparison ofthe two groups does not provide an accurateestimate of the impact of YAP since the com-parison youth can safely be considered "harder"

cases. Eighty-four percent were never consid-ered for YAP; 9 percent were not offered acontract because of lack of parental support,failure to appear or a negative attitude; and3 percent had been accepted into YAP butbreached their contract. Only 4 percent wentto court claiming innocence. The nonYAPgroup ended up being more heavily male(85.3% vs. 68.7%). Because females havelower recidivism rates, the YAP recidivismrate is likely to be lower than the nonYAPrate simply because of gender composition.

While it is important to bear in mind thelimitations of the comparison group, thenonYAP youth group can still serve as a use-ful tool for evaluating the data for the YAPparticipants. The "creaming" process used toidentify the youth most likely to benefit fromthe YAP experience creates a "better" groupof young juvenile offenders, in comparisonwith the "worse" youth selected as the com-

parison group. It would make sense to assumethat the recidivism rates and severity of sub-sequent crimes would be higher for the worse,or nonYAP, group than for the better YAPyouth. Therefore, if the recidivism rate wereworse for YAP youth or even equal to that ofthe nonYAP group, we would be inclined toconclude that YAP is not effective, perhaps iseven harmful. However, if YAP youth had alower recidivism rate, we could not necessarilyconclude that YAP is effective. Any observeddifference must be interpreted cautiously inlight of these biases.

Who Gets into YAP?(See Table 1)Among YAP youth, 68.7 percent of the sampleare male, 68.8 percent are black, and 69.7percent are between the ages of 14 and 17.For the first arrest, the largest percentage ofcharges (40.1%) were weapons violations;almost all were charged with possession of aweapon on school property (mainly pocket-knives, box cutters and screwdrivers). Thesecond most common crime among YAPyouth was a crime against property (32.4%),which includes all theft and burglary charges;14.4 percent were arrested for injury to persons,which includes various degrees of assault.

NonYAP sample youth are 85.3 percentmale and 67.4 percent black; 86.3 percent arebetween the ages of 14 and 17. For the firstarrest, the largest percentage of charges (31%)were drug law violations, which include bothsimple possession and intent to deliver (other-wise known as drug dealing). The secondmost common crime among nonYAP youthwas weapons violation (26.5%), but thesewere much less likely to have occurred onschool property; 20.9 percent were arrestedfor crimes against property.

Females are disproportionately representedamong YAP sample youth; they constitute31.3 percent of the total as compared with14.7 percent of the nonYAP sample. YAPyouth are also younger than nonYAP youth;30.3 percent of YAP youth are ages 13 andunder compared with only 13.8 percent ofnonYAP youth. As Table 1 indicates, the twogroups are very similar along racial lines.

713

YAP

Youth (%)AlonYAP

Youth (%)

Gender

Male 68.7 85.3

Female 31.3 14.7

Race

Black 68.8 67.4

White 18.5 17.4

Hispanic 12.1 14.1

Asian 0.7 0.3

Other NA 0.7

Age

10-11 years old 6.9 3.3

12-13 years old 23.4 10.5

14-15 years old 39.0 37.6

16-17 years old 30.7 48.7

Category of first crime

Injury to persons 14.4 8.8

Crimes against property 32.4 20.9

Sex offenses 0.3 2.0

Weapons violation 40.1 26.5

Drug law violations 3.0 31.0

Malicious mischief 9.4 7.5

Completed (%) Failed toComplete(%)

TOTAL 71.0 29.0

Gender

Male 69.4 30.6

Female 73.0 27.0

Race*

Black 70.1 29.9

White 85.5 14.5

Hispanic 57.1 42.9

Age

10-13 years 76.1 23.9

14-17 years 68.0 32.0

Category of First Crime**

Injury to persons 60.5 39.5

Crimes against property 68.8 31.2

Weapons violation 76.7 23.3

Drug law violations 66.7 33.3

Malicious mischief 74.1 25.9

Level of Violence of First Crime

1: Violent*** 61.3 38.7

2: Low-level violent or

potential for violence 73.7 26.3

3: Nonviolent 71.2 28.8

" Only racial categories with an n > 2 were included in the table.

"" Only crime categories with an n > 1 were included in the table.

** A violent crime usually involved pushing a victim (usually ateacher or other authority figure), but did not involve a weapon

or result in an injury.

Percentage of Youth RearrestedDuring 36 Months After Rrst Arrest

YAP Youth Who NonYAP

Completed the Program Youth

All Youth* 29.9 44.4

Gender

Females 10.8 11.1

Males* 36.6 50.2

Race

Blacks* 30.1 44.4

Whites 29.8 35.8

Hispanics** 30.0 55.8

Age

10- to 13-year-olds (at first arrest) 38.8 52.4

14- to 17-year-olds (at first arrest) 26.5 43.2

Significant at the 0.05 level.** Significant at the 0.101 level.

Who Completes YAP?(See Table2)

Seventy-one percent of all YAP youth whowere offered and who accepted a contractcompleted it. That ratio remains relativelyconstant even when controlling for mostcharacteristics of the sample. However,females were slightly more likely to com-plete the program than were males: 73 per-cent compared with 69.4 percent. Youngeryouth (ages 10 to 13) were somewhat morelikely to complete the program than wereolder youth (ages 14 to 17): 76.1 percentcompared with 68 percent. Nonviolentoffenders were more likely to complete theprogram than were violent offenders: 71.2percent compared with 61.3 percent.

Somewhat more striking differences incompletion rates become apparent when therates are controlled for race and category ofinitial crime. White youth had the highestcompletion rate, and youth who committedan injury to persons were less likely to com-plete YAP than were youth charged withmalicious mischief: 60.5 percent comparedwith 74.1 percent.

Who Gets Rearrested?(See Table 3)In the 36-month period after their first arrest,29.9 percent of the youth who completed aYAP contract were rearrested at least oncecompared with 44.4 percent of nonYAPyouth.' While this difference in recidivismrates seems encouraging, one must rememberthat the nonYAP youth are essentially a"more difficult" group of juvenile offenders.Indeed, even if the YAP program had noeffect at all on enrolled youth, the very char-acteristics that cause youth to be rejected forYAP are likely to lead to higher recidivismrates for them. The mitigating factor is theinclusion in the YAP sample of a small group(10.4 percent of the total) of youth chargedwith felony offenses.

Bearing in mind this limitation, comparingthe recidivism rates of the two groups isinformative. Table 3 shows that we find stati-istically significant lower rates of recidivismamong YAP males, YAP black youth, YAPHispanic youth, and older YAP youth (versusnonYAP youth in these categories).

What is even more revealing is howrecidivism is affected over time for the twogroups. Figure 1 shows that YAP's effectseems to take hold within the first threemonths after arrest-approximately the timethat YAP youth are under contract and beingmonitored. The 10-percentage-point gap inrecidivism rates appears over those first threemonths and stays fairly constant thereafter. Aswe have repeatedly pointed out, the absenceof a strict control group prevents us from con-clusively measuring the impact of YAP, butthe "three-month window" may indicate thatthe program has some effect.

100

80

-60

atrntoc 40

a20

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36Months from First Arrest

o YAP NonYAP

1. An eartierjtudy of the YAP program conducted for the District Attorney's Office in 1996 found a recidivism rate of 22 percent for YAP youth.

14

Conclusions Recommendations

Our observations of the Philadelphia YAPprogram and discussions with participantsfrom all aspects of the programincludingrepresentatives from the District Attorney'sOffice, program staff, panelists, youth andparentsindicate that YAP is a promisingapproach for working with first-time youthfuloffenders and a model that other locales canlearn from. Three aspects of the program areparticularly noteworthy:

1. Its Community-Based Nature.

It is obvious that the Philadelphia DistrictAttorney's Office has put a great deal ofeffort into developing and maintaining thecommunity-based nature of the YAP program.As often as possible, youth are assigned toYAP hearings in their community police dis-trict, and, for the most part, adult panelistsserve on panels in their home communities.This contact between youth and adults has thepotential to help foster a sense of relationshipand mutual responsibility between youth andadults and to mitigate the feelings of fear anddistrust that often exist between youth andadult community members.

YAP program staff also appear to be verycareful in their selection of panelists, choosingthose who seem to have an affinity for andunderstanding of young people and who willnot be put off by their sometimes "negative"behavior. They also select those who candevote the time necessary to participate fullyin the YAP process. Our research on adult-youth relationships and experience with youthprogram operations indicate that the type ofadult chosen to interact with youth in programsis critical in gaining youth's trust and strength-ening intergenerational relationships.

All of the panelists we spoke with wereenthusiastic about their experiences on thepanels. Serving as panelists helped the volun-teers feel more connected to young peopleand their own neighborhood and gave theman opportunity to "be a positive force forsomebody." For adults who feel that "all chil-dren can be helped, they just need somethingpositive in their lives," YAP is an opportunityto put that theory into action and reap thesatisfaction of "walking the walk."

2. Its Balanced Approach: Support and

Accountability.

The YAP approach provides youth with caringadults who are willing to intervene on theirbehalf in a way that allows them to avoidinvolvement with the justice system. Asmentioned several times in this report, in theabsence of this program these youth wouldmost likely be placed on probation, receivevery little supervision and end up with adelinquent record. At the same time, the YAPprocess provides youth with a strong andswift dose of community censure. Accordingto Cleary as well as the youth we interviewed,most YAP participants have hearings (wherethey may have to face their victims) and areassigned contracts within 30 to 40 days oftheir offense. Adult panel members then mon-itor the completion of youth's contracts,which often require them to perform servicein the community. Increasingly, programs forjuvenile offenders are turning to this "balanced"

approach for dealing with troubled youth.On the other hand, again according to

Cleary, youth who do not participate in YAPoften do not have a court hearing for three tofour months after their arrest. Once placed onlrobation, they receive little supervision andguidance because of probation officers' heavycaseloads.

3. The Involvement of the District Attorney's

Office.

One of the strongest elements of the YAPprogram is the role of the District Attorney'sOffice. With the knowledge and strong supportof the District Attorney, ADA Cleary is directly

involved in every aspect of the program. Thistop-level commitment gives YAP the visibilityand cooperation in the community and withinthe law enforcement system that is probablynecessary for it to function as well as it does.

The involvement of the District Attorney'sOffice has also allowed the program to beflexible and to make changes and improve-ments when necessary. For example, with theoversight of the District Attorney's Office, theoriginal eligibility requirements of the YAPprogram can be expanded to include higher-risk youth who can benefit from participation.Further, the incorporation of crime victims

195

into the YAP process was done quickly andefficiently because of the direct supervisionof the ADA.

RecommendationsThere are a number of areas in which the pro-gram can be strengthened in order to make iteven more effective.

1. Strengthen the Community Nature of the

Program.

The community-based nature of the YAP pro-gram is a strong foundation to build on.Although one goal of the program is to letyouth know that there are people in the com-munity who care about them and who volun-teer, some of the YAP youth we spoke withwere not aware of the fact that their panelistswere community members or volunteers. IfYAP youth are to absorb the full impact ofcommunity concern, it is critical that theyhave and understand this information. Itwould also be interesting to observe theimpact on youth's perception of panelists ifeach hearing incorporated an opportunity forpanelists to describe their motivation forinvolvement and their connection to thecommunity. It is possible that YAP operatorsassume that participating youth are aware thatthe panelists are community volunteers simplybecause that fact is so central to the program.

YAP officially assigns youth to a hearingin the police district they live in and appointsvolunteers to the panel in their own neighbor-hood. However, because some police districtsare especially busy, youth are occasionallysent to a hearing in a neighboring district.Likewise, panelists are sometimes assigned topanels outside their neighborhood if there is ashortage of volunteers. While young peopleare never sent across town for their hearings,shifting them out of their home district distractsfrom the community nature of the panel, oneof the program's primary components. Thisproblem is compounded by the fact that certainpanels have a harder time recruiting volunteersthan do others and are often staffed by resi-dents of other districts. For example, oneCPO pointed out, "While the 25th District isover 75 percent Hispanic, my panelists arefrom other districts, and only one is Hispanic."

The District Attorney's Office has alreadytaken steps to deal with this issue by operat-ing additional panels in some districts wherethere is a heavy caseload. It may be in thebest interest of the program to ensure that itbecomes standard practice to add panels inbusy districts, thus allowing youth always toattend hearings in their own communities.

The ADA has said that the most commonway of advertising for YAP panelists is "wordof mouth." However, more aggressive andinnovative advertising techniques (for example,in churches and barbershops) may be neededto recruit volunteers in neighborhoods wherepanels are currently staffed primarily by non-residents. Additional recruitment efforts mayalso address the need for more men of colorto serve as panelists. Approximately 80 percentof the YAP sample is made up of young peopleof color, and almost 70 percent is male. Boththe District Attorney's Office and participatingyouth expressed a desire to see more African-American men on the panels.

2. Continue to Wand the Role of Victims.Until recently, crime victims in the YAP processhave existed primarily on paper. Although theDistrict Attorney's Office sent a letter to allvictims whose perpetrators accepted YAP, fewvictims collected restitution, and even feweractually attended the hearings. No mention wasmade of victims by any of the youth participantswe spoke with. Other programs similar to YAPhave demonstrated excellent use of victims inboth shaming and forgiving similar low-leveloffenders, and YAP may likewise benefit fromincreased victim involvement. Their participa-tion may intensify the emotional impact ofthe hearing for youth and may allow the vic-tims themselves to experience the feelings ofreconnection to the community expressed bythe panelists.

3. Improve the Panelist Training Program.

Overall, panelists seemed to feel that thetraining they received could be more relevantand more interactive. Most focus group par-ticipants nodded in agreement with the panelistwho said, "I just think the initial training is awaste of time. I mean we're all adults; we'vebeen in this world long enough to have somegood common sense." A number of panelistscomplained about the experience of being

"talked at." In contrast, panelists enjoyedthe advanced training in the Good ShepherdConflict Resolution Program because itinvolved role-playing and "we got a chanceto have input."

Since panelists were more enthusiastic about

the advanced training sessions, the DistrictAttorney's Office may want to reexamine theinitial training process and move away froma traditional classroom format to one thatengages the volunteers more actively. Trainersmay want to collect panelist feedback andmake modifications with the assistance ofveteran panelists.

4. Engage Youth More in the YAP Process.

The YAP youth frequently described the hear-ing and contract as something that happenedto them, not a process in which they activelyparticipated. Youth who did recall their YAPexperience in a positive light were typicallythose who had become engaged in a commu-nity service assignment. The District Attorney'sOffice may want to consider modifying thehearing process so that it allows for more par-ticipation by youth. Perhaps youth could helpcontribute ideas for contract terms, whichwould help panelists further adapt the con-tract to the needs of the juvenile and wouldhelp the youth feel more like a true partner in,rather than a recipient of, the contract.

As it stands, some panels have youthreturn to the panel when they are done; othershave youth turn in their work to the monitoror the CPO. Panelists whose districts requireyouth to come back upon completion recom-mend it: "For the most part, when they comeback, they're usually fairly proud of the factthat they did it...There's a certain sense ofaccomplishment there. So I think if you don'tbring them back, it's a mistake." Panels thatcurrently do not meet with youth at the end ofthe contract may want to consider doing so.Youth may be eager to share, or at least berecognized for, the work they have done.

5. Clarify Role Responsibilities.

After almost a decade of operation, YAP hasbeen adapted in different districts in an effortto meet the needs or match the personalitiesof different communities and individuals. TheDistrict Attorney's Office may want to evalu-ate the gradual modifications in roles and

10-1.16

responsibilities that have taken place overtime. For example, the CPOs in differentdistricts vary considerably in their degreeof involvement on the panel. The DistrictAttorney's Office should decide if that varietyis acceptable or if CPOs should be instructedto adhere to a single role description.

The role of the monitor also varies accord-ing to the personality of the panelist and theyouth he or she has been assigned to monitor.One panelist would "like to see an expansionof the term monitor"; he wants to do more thansimply say "the contract is this and that's allyou do." Other panelists favored the less-involved model because, as one panelistwarned, "You can't try and be all things toeverybody because one, you burn yourselfout; number two, you're really not doingthe job you're supposed to." The DistrictAttorney's Office may want to evaluate therange of monitor behavior they want toencourage and then make their opinion clearduring panelist training sessions.

6. Take Steps to Increase the Appearance

Rate for YAP Youth.

In the sample we studied, approximately 15percent of the youth never showed up for theirhearings and were subsequently re-listed tocourt. Appearance rates vary slightly by ageand by race: 86.5 percent of the 10- to 14-year -olds appeared at their hearings comparedwith 80.4 percent of 15- to 17-year-olds; whiteshad the highest appearance rate at 89 percentcompared with blacks at 84.7 percent andHispanics at 80.6 percent.

Efforts should be made to increase theseappearance rates and, where possible, discoverthe reasons some youth never show up. It ispossible that the lower attendance rate forHispanics is caused to some degree by lan-guage difficulties. If this is the case, theintake interviewer should have access to atranslator, and reminder letters should beprinted in Spanish as well as English. (TheDistrict Attorney's Office has printed a bilin-gual pamphlet describing the program andprovides it to all YAP candidates at the intakeinterview.) It may be in the best interest of theprogram to contact nonattenders in an effortto discover their reason for not appearing.

If at all possible, Cleary's practice of visit-ing the homes of some youth to remind themto attend their hearing should be expanded. Itwill be worthwhile to document whetherthese pre-hearing visits positively influenceyouth attendance at hearings.

7. Broaden YAP's Referral Network.

In the sample, 50.2 percent of the youth whowere awarded a contract were sent to thePhiladelphia Service Institute (PSI). In 1995Good Shepherd Mediation Program createdits Conflict Resolution Program specificallyto work with referrals from the YAPs and,since that time, has replaced PSI as the recipi-ent of the bulk of YAP referrals. Such a highreferral rate to a single organization mayindicate a lack of information about otheroptions. Many of the YAP panelists we spokewith indicated a need for more information onresources. Now over a decade old, YAP stillrelies on each panel's collective knowledge ofits neighborhood's resources for referrals. TheDistrict Attorney's Office should evaluate thebenefits of investing in a thorough survey ofcity resources and conveying the results topanels. It may be that individual panels arebetter suited for this task, in which case theDistrict Attorney's Office could encourageand assist the panels with organizing and doc-umenting the resources in their neighborhoods.

When developing a contract, panelists saythey "try to find things that relate to what [theyouth] did and what [the youth is] interestedin." However, in the youth focus groups, weheard complaints from youth who wereassigned to do community service at a policestation, where they typically performed clean-ing duties. The youth argued that they had notlearned anything. One youth who had com-pleted such an assignment claimed that itwould have made more sense to him to workat a church: "Helping out people that needhelp. That would have been better." Moreresource information could decrease the num-ber of police station assignments. YAP youthalso expressed a desire for more mentoringfrom their monitors, and information onresources could be used to connect moreyouth to mentors and adults in the community.

8. Increase Public Awareness of the YAP

Program.

Increased public awareness of YAP wouldhelp to address many of the issues raised inthe above recommendations. First, publicityabout the YAP program in general would likely

lead to a wider pool of potential panelists.More residents who are informed about theprogram's existence, purpose and reliance oncommunity members could mean more volun-teers to staff panels. As a result, the DistrictAttorney's Office would be able to establishsecond panels in busy districts and couldpotentially recruit more minority males. It ispossible that a citywide publicity effort wouldreach a population that current recruitmenttactics do not.

Second, with additional publicity, it islikely that eligible juvenile offenders wouldbe aware of and understand the goals of theYAP program before they are arrested. Theprogram would be strengthened if youthunderstood and appreciated the motivations ofthe community volunteer panelists. Advanceinformation about YAP might also make theyouth more appreciative of the opportunitythat YAP extends to avoid the court system.Finally, it would be useful for city and non-profit agencies (potential referral sources forYAP) to be aware of the program. Informedagencies might contact YAP and help toexpand the referral network.

9. Sustain the Apparent Impact of the

Program Manifested in the First Three

Months.

The recidivism rate for YAP youth divergedfrom that of the nonYAP youth over the firstthree months. This delay of criminal activityoccurs at the time that most youth are still intheir contract period. It is possible that thepresence of the monitors and the requirementsof the assignments are what keep youth out oftrouble. If this is the case, then it would makesense to develop ways to connect youth, per-haps through contract terms, to more perma-nent community resources so that this "hold"on recidivism might be maintained longer.For example, the program could serve to:

Connect youth to long-term mentors. TheYAP youth we spoke with expressed, bothdirectly and indirectly, a desire for more men-

toring from their monitors. An example is theyoung man who said he would like a monitorwho would "stop through and check on you,somebody to talk over your problems." P/PV'sresearch has demonstrated the profound impacta mentor can have on the life of a young person.It would not be feasible for the YAP program,already operating above capacity, to take onthe responsibility of arranging full-time men-toring. Particularly as the program continuesto involve youth who are at even greater risk,the demands on monitors would be unman-ageable. Perhaps contracts could be used toconnect youth either to formal mentors (suchas those available in mentoring programs oryouth organizations) or to informal mentorsin the community.

Connect youth to sustained programs andactivities. If the YAP referral network werebroadened and panelists had more program-matic options at hand, the odds would be bet-ter that a youth could be directed toward theprogram or programs that best match his orher interests or needs. In panelist training ses-sions, the District Attorney's Office couldemphasize connecting youth to programs thathave long-term possibilities. For example,instead of sending a youth to a one-timeantitheft class, a panel could require a youthto volunteer at a soup kitchen that runs anestablished, consistent meal program. Forthose youth who are interested, relationshipswith agencies could continue after the con-tract is completed.

10. Conduct Further Research.

The above recommendations could be usedby the Philadelphia District Attorney's Officeto strengthen the YAP program. Once this hasbeen accomplished, a formal random assign-ment study could be instituted to determinethe actual effects of a strengthened YAP versus

standard juvenile court proceedings. We alsorecommend that any further YAP researchinclude a detailed analysis of program costs,so that the Philadelphia District Attorney'sOffice as well as law enforcement entities inother jurisdictions will have a clear pictureof both the costs and the benefits of this typeof approach.

A11.

For this study, 300 of the youth who acceptedthe opportunity to participate in YAP in 1994were randomly selected from the databasemaintained by the District Attorney's Office.This database includes the youth's name,address, date of birth, criminal charge, thedistrict and date that his or her hearing wasscheduled, the content of the contract, thescheduled termination date and actual dis-charge date, and if and when the youth com-pleted the contract. If the youth did not acceptthe YAP offer, failed to appear for the hear-ing, was not offered or did not accept a con-tract, or failed to complete the contract, thenthat information is also noted.

A search was done in the Philadelphiajuvenile records system using the names andbirth dates of the YAP youth. If a match wasmade, the juvenile identification number, policephoto number, charge, date and district ofarrest, and court action taken were recordedfor each juvenile arrest. A search was thendone in the Philadelphia adult records system,again using names and birth dates as well aspolice photo numbers, when available. Thecharge, date, district of arrest and court actiontaken were recorded for each adult arrest.Only crimes, both adult and juvenile, thatoccurred inside the County of Philadelphiawere recorded. Thus, the recidivism rates areslightly underestimated.

To put the recidivism behavior of YAP youth

into some context, we collected data on a sec-ond group of somewhat similar youth-300youth who had been arrested for first-timenonfelony offenses in 1994 but who were notselected for YAP. These youth were randomlyselected from youth in the juvenile recordssystem. Using the juvenile identificationnumber, a search was made in both thePhiladelphia juvenile records system for addi-tional juvenile charges and in the Philadelphiaadult records system. For both adult and juve-nile crimes, the charge, arrest date, districtand court action taken were recorded. Again,only crimes that occurred in Philadelphiawere included.

The nonYAP comparison group containsindividuals declared ineligible for YAPbecause they lacked family support, theywere not enrolled in school, or their crimewas considered too serious by ADA Cleary.The sample also includes youth who were

considered eligible for YAP but who failed toappear at the hearing or the intake interview,claimed innocence, appeared without a parentat the hearing or intake interview, or were notoffered a contract by their panel because theirattitude was considered offensive. The com-parison youth can safely be considered "harder"

cases: 84 percent were never considered forYAP; 9 percent were not offered a contractbecause of lack of parental support, failure toappear or a negative attitude; and 3 percenthad been accepted into YAP but had breachedtheir contract. Only 4 percent went to courtclaiming innocence.

Counterbalancing this bias, the low-levelfelony and second-time offenders who areoften admitted into YAP are not representedin the nonYAP group. Because these decisionsare made at Cleary's discretion, there is no wayto sort through the second-time offenders orthe felony offenses of first-time offenders inthe comparison group. Therefore, only first-time misdemeanor offenders are included inthe sample.

A final difference between the YAP andnonYAP groups is the proportion of females.The comparison group selection was done ran-domly; the court did not match the groups bygender. The nonYAP group ended up beingmore heavily male than the YAP group (85.3%vs. 68.7%). Because females have lowerrecidivism rates, the YAP recidivism rate islikely to be lower than the nonYAP rate sim-ply because of the gender composition. Thus,the comparison of the two groups does notprovide an estimate of the impact of YAP.Information on the comparison group is givento provide the reader with some context.

To complement the quantitative data, weconducted five focus groups, four with youthand one with current panelists. Participants inthe four youth focus groups were selectedusing the Percent Distribution of DelinquencyCases by Philadelphia Police Districts fromthe Philadelphia Family Court 1993 AnnualReport, with which we identified the twohighest crime districts (8% and 9% of thetotal) and three medium crime districts (each4% of the total). We generated two lists forboth the "high crime group" and the "mediumcrime group," one list of youth who hadrecently completed the program and one listof those who were currently completing their

12

contracts. The youth were contacted by phone,and those who expressed interest received aletter and a consent form. Youth who com-pleted the consent form were included in thefocus group, and each youth received $10 andpizza. The focus groups were held in commu-nity centers and churches in the youth's com-munity. The panelists were selected at randomfrom the five districts chosen for the youth focus

groups. The panelists were also contacted byphone and received a follow-up letter and $10.

In addition, we conducted interviews withthe individuals who play a part in the YAPprocess or are affected by it: parents of youthwho have gone through the program; probationofficers and supervisors; CPOs who serve onand act as liaisons to the panels; Officer EdAddison, the intake interviewer; Paul Johnson,the court liaison for the school district; BobNapper, a trainer from Good Shepherd;Susan McNamara, a former employee of thePhiladelphia Service Institute; Meg Cinberg,the ADA law clerk; and ADA Michael Cleary.

18

Public/Private Ventures is a national nonprofitorganization whose mission is to improve theeffectiveness of social policies, programs andcommunity initiatives, especially as theyaffect youth and young adults. In carrying outthis mission, P/PV works with philanthropies,the public and business sectors, and nonprofitorganizations.

Board of DirectorsSiobhan Nicolau, Chair

PresidentHispanic Policy

Development Project

Amalia V. BetanzosPresidentWildcat Service

Corporation

Yvonne ChanPrincipalVaughn Learning Center

John J. Dilulio, Jr.Fox Leadership Professor

of Politics, Religion andCivil Society

University ofPennsylvania

Alice F. EmersonSenior FellowAndrew W Mellon

Foundation

Susan FuhrmanDean, Graduate School of

EducationUniversity of

Pennsylvania

Matthew McGuireDirector of Private Sector

InitiativesWildcat Service

Corporation

Michael P. MorleySenior Vice PresidentEastman Kodak Company

Jeremy NowakChief Executive OfficerThe Reinvestment Fund

Marion PinesSenior FellowInstitute for Policy StudiesJohns Hopkins University

Isabel Carter StewartNational Executive

DirectorGirls Incorporated

Mitchell SviridoffCommunity Development

Consultant

Marta TiendaProfessor of SociologyPrinceton University

Gary WalkerPresidentPublic/Private Ventures

William Julius WilsonLewis P. and Linda L.

Geyser UniversityProfessor

Harvard University

Pe

U.S. Department of EducationOffice of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)

National Library of Education (NLE)Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)

NOTICE

REPRODUCTION BASIS

11(in This document is covered by a signed "Reproduction Release(Blanket) form (on file within the ERIC system), encompassing allor classes of documents from its source organization and, therefore,does not require a "Specific Document" Release form.

This document is Federally-funded, or carries its own permission toreproduce, or is otherwise in the public domain and, therefore, maybe reproduced by ERIC without a signed Reproduction Release form(either "Specific Document" or "Blanket").

EFF-089 (9/97)