what works: evidence-based practice in juvenile delinquency dispositions james c. (buddy) howell...
Post on 15-Jan-2016
215 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
What Works: Evidence-Based Practice in Juvenile Delinquency Dispositions
James C. (Buddy) HowellCo-Director, North Carolina Evidence-Based
Juvenile Justice Project
Institute of Government UNC Chapel HillMarch 29, 2006
Ways to Use Evaluation Research to Improve Program
Practice• Evaluate each program to provide feedback
on implementation and outcomes.
• Implement a “model” program that evaluation has shown to be effective; monitor implementation compliance.
• Follow “best practices” guidelines for effective programs that have been derived from evaluation research; monitor compliance.
An Introduction to Evidence-Based Practice
What do the following terms mean?
Evidence-based programsResearch-based programsBest practices
They all mean the same thing: Programs that are based on scientifically sound research that shows what programs or specific services effectively reduce problem behaviors.
NC’s Comprehensive Strategy for Juvenile Delinquency
Problem Behavior > Noncriminal Misbehavior > Delinquency > Serious, Violent, and Chronic Offending
PreventionTarget Population: At-Risk Youth
Preventing youth from becoming
delinquent by focusing prevention
programs on at-risk youth
Graduated SanctionsTarget Population: Delinquent Youth
Improving the juvenile justice
system response to delinquent
offenders through a system of
graduated sanctions and a
continuum of treatment
alternatives
> > > > > >Programs for All Youth
Programs for Youth at Greatest Risk
Immediate Intervention
Intermediate Sanctions
Community Confinement
Training Schools
Aftercare
The Scope of North Carolina’sJuvenile Delinquency Problem
Because only a small fraction of adjudicated youths in NC are serious, violent, and chronic offenders (see next slide), the delinquency problem is quite manageable.
• We must use structured decision making tools,
• To build a continuum of effective programs
• With evidence-based services.
Non-Serious Non-ViolentNon-Chronic62%
Serious or Violent
28%
Chronic
10%
Violent
2%
C & V0.5%
Source: NC DJJDP Risk Assessment Data FY01-02 to FY 02-03 (N=17,645)
Juvenile Offender Court CareersNorth Carolina
AUTHORITY CONFLICT PATHWAY(before age 12)
OVERT PATHWAY COVERT PATHWAY(before age 15)
AGE OF ONSET:LATE
EARLY
%BOYS/GIRLS:FEW
MANYStubborn Behavior
Defiance/Disobedience
AUTHORITYAVOIDANCE
(truancy, running away,
staying out late)
MINOR AGGRESSION (bullying, annoying others)
PHYSICAL FIGHTING(physical fighting,gang fighting)
VIOLENCE(rape, attack,strong-arm, homicide)
MINOR COVERT BEHAVIOR (shoplifting, frequent lying)
PROPERTY DAMAGE(vandalism, fire-setting)
MODERATELYSERIOUSDELINQUENCY(fraud, pick-pocketing)
SERIOUS DELINQUENCY (auto theft, burglary)
Developmental Pathways to Serious and Violent Behavior*
*Loeber©
Graduated Sanctions Component
Driven by data from assessment of offender’s risk factors and treatment needs (Structured Decision Making tools)
The first objective is to ensure public safety by restricting offender’s freedom to commit offenses.
The second objective is to achieve a good match between offender characteristics and their treatment needs.
A Model of Graduated Sanctions
Increasing Sanctions
Decreasing Sanctions
Diversion
Youth Court
Probation
Intensive PS
CB Resid.
Residential Placement
Intensive PS
Probation
Group Counseling
Mentoring
Day/EveReport.
Key DJJDP SDM Tools• DJJDP has a validated risk assessment
instrument
• DJJDP has an effective needs/strengths assessment instrument
• The JJ Reform Act provided a Disposition Matrix
• The Disposition Matrix and risk assessment instrument are functioning well in guiding offender placements
Risk Assessment in Juvenile Justice
NCCD
What is risk assessment?
• A statistical procedure for estimating the probability that a “critical” event will occur at some time in the future.
• In the juvenile justice system, the “critical” event is generally a new delinquent offense committed by a juvenile offender who has been placed on probation or parole supervision.
Needs Assessment in Juvenile Justice
NCCD
A needs assessment is intended to do the following:
• Provide an overview of the level of seriousness of the juvenile offender’s treatment needs
• Provide information to assist court counselors in developing comprehensive treatment plans
• Comprehensive supervision and service plans establish specific objectives, time frames, and offender’s needs to be addressed by the responsible agencies/persons.
Disposition Matrix
• A disposition matrix organizes sanctions and programs by risk level and offense severity.
• It places offenders along a continuum of programs and sanctions
• Research shows that a reliable risk assessment instrument predicts differential recidivism rates at various risk levels.
Key Points of the Disposition Matrix
• Low risk offenders are placed in community programs with minimal supervision
• Medium risk offenders are typically placed in more structured community programs with intensive probation supervision
• High risk offenders may be placed in Youth Development Centers
North Carolina Offender Disposition Matrix
Risk Level
Offense Low Medium High
Violent Level 2 or 3 Level 3 Level 3
Serious Level 1 or 2 Level 2 Level 2 or 3
Minor Level 1 Level 1 or 2 Level 2
Level 1 Community
Level 2 Intermediate
Level 3 Commitment to Youth Development Center
Dispositional Levels Risk Level by Disposition
Low Medium High Total
%% % %
Level 1 – Community 65% 31% 3% 100%
Level 2 – Intermediate 27% 47% 26% 100%
Level 3 – Commitment 7% 23% 70% 100%
Protective Supervision 47% 49% 4% 100%
Total 49% 38% 14% 100%
Disposition of NC Court Referrals by Risk Level
46%
40%
14%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Low Medium High
Risk Levels of Adjudicated Juvenile OffendersNorth Carolina, 2003
(N=3722) (N=3197) (N=1115)
20%
34%
45%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Low Medium High
Recidivism by Risk Level in North Carolina (percent with new court complaints)
Admissions to North Carolina YouthDevelopment Centers 1998-2003
122
712
469
95
619
438
112
560
239
108
434
78
110
343
47
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1 2 3 4 5
NC Youth Development Center Admissions (1998-2002)
Violent Serious Minor Offenses
A Practical Approach To Evaluating and Improving
Juvenile Justice Programs Utilizing The Standardized
Program Evaluation Protocol
The Lipsey-Howell-Tidd Project
What is meta-analysis?
“Meta” means beyond, more comprehensive
A synthesis of evaluation results
A technique for coding, analyzing, and summarizing
research evidence; or a sophisticated way to extract,
analyze, and summarize the findings of a collection of
related research studies
Current database on the effects of intervention with juvenile offenders
Offenders N of Studies
Pre-adjudication (at-risk) 178
Court supervision (probation) 216
Committed 90
Aftercare 25
Total 509
From the bottom up: Evaluation study of intervention effects on recidivism
Recidivism Results from more than 500 Delinquency Outcome Studies (Lipsey, 2002)
A Surprising Revelation to SomeMost everyday (“practical”) juvenile justice programs reduce recidivism! (see the following table)
• The challenge is this. Half of the evaluated everyday JJ programs do not produce meaningful reductions in recidivism.
• To improve this situation, JJ practitioners must use evidence-based program services and in configurations that, on average, produce larger reductions in recidivism .
Practical programs with different numbers of favorable features
Key Meta-Analysis Findings
• Research shows that, on average, most juvenile justice programs reduce recidivism.
• Most JJ programs developed by practitioners also reduce recidivism, but very little.
• Some programs have large effects but implementation is equally important.
• There is enough research to characterize best practice for most programs, but not all.
An important finding about factors associated with program outcomes
Implementation is as important as treatment type
Reduction in Recidivism from .50 Control Group Rate
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol
(SPEP)
What is it? A practical method for evaluating juvenile justice and delinquency prevention programs against best practices.
The SPEP provides a scheme (protocol) for assigning points to programs according to how closely their characteristics match those associated with the best outcomes in research.
Four Main Characteristics Of Effective Program Services
1. The Program Type (primary service)2. Supplemental Services3. Amount of Service4. Characteristics of Clients
These are the four sections of the Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) program rating instrument
Point system based on what the research shows as “best practice”
“Ideal” “Good”
Mor
e P
oint
s =
Les
s D
elin
quen
cy
Primary Service
Supplemental Services
Amount of Service
Characteristics of Clients
Room for Improvement
Prevention Programs(Primary Service Types)
Parent training/counselingInterpersonal skills trainingTutoring
Group counselingDrug/alcohol therapy/counselingEmployment related
Individual counselingMentoringFamily counseling
Effective – above average--60 points
Effective – about average--50 points
Effective – below average--40 points
Court Delinquency Supervision Programs(Primary Service Types)
Family counselingTutoringMentoring
Parent training/counselingInterpersonal skills trainingDrug/alcohol therapy/counseling
Individual counselingGroup counselingEmployment-relatedRestitution
Effective – above average--60 points
Effective – about average--50 points
Effective – below average--40 points
Programs for Committed Youths(Primary Service Types)
EFFECTIVE--ABOVE AVERAGE• Behavior management • Cognitive-behavioral therapy • Employment/job training • Interpersonal skills training
EFFECTIVE– ABOUT AVERAGE• Family counseling• Group counseling• Individual counseling
EFFECTIVE-- BELOW AVERAGE• Career/vocational counseling• Tutoring/remedial education
Example of Best Practice Rating System Based on Meta-Analysis Results: NC SPEP for Court
Supervision Cases
Service mix:Primary &supplementaryservices
Amount ofservicecompleted
Risk & ageof juvenilesserved
Pointsallocated inproportionto strengthof relationshipto recidivismfound inmeta-analysis
Data onproviderperformancederived fromclient trackingforms
Total points=match with“best practice”
Expected Recidivism with Features of Effective Court Delinquency Programs
Comparable Juveniles not in a Program 40%
Average Supervision Program in Database 34%
Effective, Above Average Service (AAS) 32%
AAS +Best Supplemental Service (BSS) 28%
AAS +BSS+Optimal Service Amount (OSA) 24%
AAS +BSS+OSA+Appropriate Clients 21%
Continuum Building
Even if well implemented and effective, a single “model” program will do little to strengthen the overall continuum of program options.
The SPEP can be used to evaluate and improve routine programs spanning the continuum from prevention to post-release supervision.
At the same time, program structures must be recognized for their value in a continuum of program services and structures.
Arrest
Counsel & release
Diversion;Informal probation
Probation
Incarceration
Level of Supervision
InterventionPrograms
RecidivismOutcomes
Program A
Program B
Program C
Program D
Program E
Program F
U%U%
V%V%
W%W%
X%X%
Y%Y%
Z%Z%
TotalTotalReoffenseReoffense
RateRate
Pre
ven
tio
n P
rog
ram
s
T%T%
Risk assessmentand risk-based
dispositionsEffectiveprograms
Needs assessment;match needsto program
Minimizereoffending
What the SPEP is Not
• It is not a whole blueprint for a program. It measures only the delinquency reduction potential a program type has, on average, based on prior research.
• It does not provide a treatment plan for individual clients, only a framework within which treatment can be planned.
Key Reference WorksAvailable at: http://www.vanderbilt.edu/cerm/
Howell, J. C., & Lipsey, M. W. (2004). A practical approach to linking graduated sanctions with a continuum of effective programs. Juvenile Sanctions Center Training and Technical Assistance Bulletin Vol. 2(1), 1-10. Reno, NV National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.
Howell, J. C., & Lipsey, M. W. (2004). A practical approach to evaluating and improving juvenile justice programs. Juvenile and Family Court Journal , 55(1), 35-48.
Lipsey, M. W. (2002). Meta-analysis and program outcome evaluation. Socialvetenskaplig Tidskrift, 9(2-3), 194-208.
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (1993). The efficacy of psychological, educational, and behavioral treatment: Confirmation from meta-analysis. American Psychologist, 48, 1181-1209.
top related