los angeles county 241.1 multidisciplinary...

A Summary of Findings for the Los Angeles County

241.1 Multidisciplinary Team

Denise C. Herz, Ph.D.School of Criminal Justice & CriminalisticsCalifornia State University—Los Angeles

Annual Report to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors—May 2015

6/1/2015

241.1 Project for Crossover Youth Annual Report|

Overview of Data & MethodsData Collection

Launches

Oct. 2013

All 241.1 Referrals “Initial Data” =

Characteristics at Time of Arrest & 241.1 Referral

• 241.1 DCFS Unit• 241.1 Probation Unit• DCFS Education Section & Consultants• DMH

Initial Data Entered By:

Up to 30 241.1 youth who received a disposition each month starting in October

“Tracking Data”

• 241.1 DCFS Unit• 241.1 Probation Unit• DMH (Service data only)

Tracking Data Entered By:

Only youth with a declared 300 case by the time they received their delinquency disposition

TARGET POPULATION

Youth’s status at 6 months or 1 year after disposition

or until jurisdiction terminates in both systems-

whichever comes first

TRACKING PERIOD

241.1 CWS/CMS Web-Based Application

Referral type for all referrals

Disposition & characteristics for all 241.1 referrals with a declared 300 case and pending delinquency petition

Six month tracking data results for 62 youth who received a disposition in October, November, and December 2013

1

2

3

THIS REPORT INCLUDES:

InitialData

TrackingData

6/1/2015


2014 Referrals & Dispositions

47%Reassessments

22%Other with

Pending Status

31%300 Cases

with Pending Delinquency

Petition

Type of 241.1 Referrals Received (N=1,021 referrals)

311 Referrals

277 Unique Youth

31% of these youth had multiple (2+) referrals

within 2014

Of these cases, there were...

MDT Recommendations & Court Dispositions

DismissInformal Probation

WIC 300/602

DualJurisdiction

Ward of Delinquency CourtWIC 602; 300 Case Closed

Transferred

1% 56% 31% 2% ---

Disposition Outcomes

4% 42% 33% 3% 7%

MDT Recommendations

*** 10% of cases pending recommendations and motions

Disposition Less Severe Than

MDT Recommendations

Disposition More Severe Than

MDT Recommendations

Disposition =MDT Recommendations

60%25% 16%

WIC 654.2, 725a, 790 To Another Court/County

6/1/2015


Who were the 241.1 referrals?

45%

43%

8%

4%

African-American

Latino

Caucasian

Other

FEMALE37%

MALE63% Average Age

16Years Old

Limited to Unique Individuals with a Declared 300 Case & a Pending

Delinquency Petition(N=402)

AT TIME OF THEIR ARREST

Family had been referred to DCFS

Youth had spent 32% were living in group homes

17% at Home17% with Relative

Dependency RepresentationChildren’s Law Center33% Unit 123% Unit 221% Unit 3

10 times

(on average).

5years in DCFS care (on average) consecutive and non-consecutive.

Did not have an identi�ableEducation Rights Holder

70% were Enrolled inSchool

21% Attended Regularly18% Doing Well/Average49% Credit De�cient

31% were receiving Special Education

Services

16% neededan Assessment

for SpecialEducation

School Status &Academic Performance

BehavioralHealth Status

AT TIME OF ASSESSMENT

74% had Mental Health

Diagnosis

59% had Pattern of Drug Use or

Abuse/Dependency Diagnosis

23% Experienced

Suicidal Ideation

27% Were

Prescribed Medication

AT TIME OF ASSESSMENT

6/1/2015

10% Represented byAlternate Public Defender


What were their offenses & how did they move through the juvenile justice system?

VIOLENTOFFENSE PROPERTYOFFENSE OTHEROFFENSE

40%35%

28%

76% of these offenses

were assault-related

Limited to Unique Individuals with a Declared 300 Case &

a Pending Delinquency Petition (N=402)

]29%

of Charges were Related to

Living Situation

15% of Charges were

Related toSchool

35% were Detained

at Time of Arrest

23%18%

had prior criminal chargeshad prior referrals for status o�enses

74% Represented byPublic Defender

72% Received anAssessment MDT

37%Received

Post MDTMeeting

95%

79%

71%

62%

Attend School and Maintain Grades

Participate in Family Counseling

Perform Community Service

Do Not Drink Alcoholic Beverages

DELINQUENCY DISPOSITION

5% Dismiss48% Informal Probation

30% Dual Jurisdiction3% Ward of Delinquency Court6% Transferred10% Pending

TOP 4 PROBATION CONDITIONS

6/1/2015


Who attended MDT meetings?

MOST LIKELY ATTENDED BY:

Received 241.1 Assessment Meeting (Pre-Adjudication)72%

100% 241.1 Unit DCFS CSW

99% 241.1 Unit

Probation Officer

97% DMH/Psychiatric

Social Worker

92% Education Consultant

LESS LIKELY ATTENDED BY:

10% Attorney(Children’s Law Center)

10% Other Program Representative/Advocate

1% Parents/Caregivers

1% Youth

29% Other Program Representative/Advocate

28% Education Consultant

16% Attorney (Children’s Law Center)

MOST LIKELY ATTENDED BY:

Received a Post MDT Meeting (Post-Disposition)37%

100% 241.1 Unit DCFS CSW

100% Probation

Representative(241.1 DPO,

Supervising DPO, or both)

91% DMH/Psychiatric

Social Worker

LESS LIKELY ATTENDED BY:

92%Youth

81% Parents/

Caregivers

6/1/2015

OUTCOMES AT 6 MONTHS

Graduated Regular Attendance Increased

39%3%

“Doing Average”Academically

Increased

24%

ReceivedCourt Violations

31%

ReceivedWIC 777 Violations

18%Had New Arrests

16%19%

Referred forReassessment


Tracked Youth at 6 Months After Disposition: Services and Outcomes (N=62)

% Connected to Mental Health

Services

% Connected to Substance Abuse

Services

% Connected to Behavioral/Social

Services

% Connected to Educational

Services

89% 55% 84% 86%INDIVIDUAL TREATMENT

100% 25%Not Attending

GROUPTREATMENT


FAMILYTREATMENT


17%Referral Only

ALCOHOL/DRUG EDUCATION

53% 78%Participating/Completed

OUTPATIENTTREATMENT


INPATIENTTREATMENT


ANGER MANAGEMENT

63% 60%Participating

INDEPENDENTLIVING PROGRAM

25% 54%Referral Only

LIFE SKILLSTRAINING


TUTORING


ATTENDANCEMONITORING


CREDIT RECOVERY

42% 27%Referral Only

Note: 45% eligible for AB 167 or 317E

TOP 3 SERVICES WITHIN EACH CATEGORY




6/1/2015

los angeles county 241.1 multidisciplinary...

Documents