Juvenile Crime Prevention Program Evaluation Summary 2015… · 2015, staff entered information...

Submitted to:

Lindsey Capps, Interim Director Celeste Janssen, Council Chair Anya Sekino, Juvenile Crime Prevention Manager Youth Development Council Division of the Oregon Department of Education Salem, OR Submitted by:

NPC Research 5100 SW Macadam Ave., Ste. 575 Portland, OR 97239 (503) 243-2436 www.npcresearch.com

December 2017

Juvenile Crime Prevention Program Evaluation Summary

2015–2017

Juvenile Crime Prevention Program

Evaluation Summary 2015–2017

Submitted by

NPC Research

Lisa M. Lucas, B.A. Anna M. Malsch, Ph.D.

Juliette R. Mackin, Ph.D. www.npcresearch.com

December 2017

NPC Research, JCP Evaluation Findings 2015–17

Page 1 of 15

he Juvenile Crime Prevention (JCP) Program provides funds to Oregon counties and Tribes to pay for services supporting youth and their families, with the goal of preventing young people from engaging in criminal behavior. JCP monies fund services and programs identified by each

community to meet its specific needs and focus on assessing and intervening with youth at high risk to commit crimes. Youth eligible for JCP-funded programs and services are those who are 10-17, have a presenting problematic behavior, and have more than one of the following risk domains:1

• Antisocial behavior

• School failure

• Poor family functioning or poor family support

• Substance abuse

• Negative peer association

• Antisocial attitudes, values, or beliefs

Youth Assessment and Service As part of the planning process, counties decided how to use their JCP funds and which organization would serve as the lead agency. In some counties, JCP was housed in juvenile departments, and in other counties the funds were used by community organizations. Until June 2015, staff entered information about JCP services into one of two data systems. County juvenile departments utilized the Juvenile Justice Information System and community-based and Tribal programs used the JCP Data Manager system. JCP Data Manager was discontinued this biennium and another database is in development. While community-based and Tribal programs continued to serve and collect data on youth receiving JCP services, those data are not part of this biennium’s report. The number of total youth in service reported here (810) is only representative of those youth served in the 20 counties entering assessment data into JJIS.2 Overall, there were 4,992 youth served during this biennium (including 4,182 youth served in the community and not entered into JJIS, 340 of which were Tribal youth).

JCP programs in county juvenile departments served 810 youth this biennium. These are youth who have had at least one contact with the juvenile justice system for a status or criminal offense.

Table 1. Youth Served by JCP July 2015 – June 2017

Number of Youth Continuing Service3

Number of Youth New in

2015-17

Total Youth in the Evaluation

2015-17

331 479 810

1 The first five risk factors are listed in Oregon Revised Statutes 417.855. The additional validated factor (antisocial attitudes, values, and beliefs) is supported by research and became policy subsequent to the legislation. 2 See the JCP Data Tables for the list of included counties and the number of youth from each county that was entered into JJIS. 3 These youth received their initial JCP assessment prior to July 2015, but were still active in JCP services during the current biennium.

T


Page 2 of 15

Youth Demographic Profile

Table 2. Youth Gender, Age, and Race/Ethnicity 2015-174

Gender Male 66%

Female 34% Not reported 0%

Age Average (mean) 14 years

Range 7-18 years Race/Ethnicity

White 66% Hispanic/Latino 18%

African American 6% Multiple races/ethnicities 5%

Native American 3% Asian/Pacific Islander/

Native Hawaiian 1%

Service Profile • Average # of Risk Indicators present on Initial Assessment (out of 24): 8

• Average # of Protective Indicators lacking on Initial Assessment (out of 6): 3

• Average Risk Score (sum of two items above): 105 [medium risk]

• At the Initial Assessment, one quarter (25%) of all youth were categorized as low risk (0-5), 44% as medium risk (6-13), and 32%6 as high risk (14 or more; range 0-25).

• Average # of Risk Domains present on Initial Assessment (out of 6): 4 (range of 0-6)

• Youth with an issue in the School Domain: 70% [see Table 4 for details]

4 See Appendix A for details of risk level and risk reduction by demographics and data source. See Appendix B for details of risk reduction within demographic groups. See Appendix C for details of risk level and risk reduction for youth ages 9 and younger (youth outside of the intended population for JCP services). 5 Due to rounding, the sum of the number of risk indicators (8, actually 7.5) and protective factors lacking (3, actually 2.7) does not exactly equal the average risk score (10). 6 Due to rounding, the sum of the percent of youth at each risk level does not exactly equal 100.


Page 3 of 15

Reductions in Risk • 598 youth had assessments at multiple time periods this biennium (for calculating changes in

risk score). • Over half (62%) of all youth in service experienced a reduction in their overall risk score during

service. o Of the high-risk youth, 80% experienced a reduction their overall risk score.

• 38% of youth in service demonstrated no change or an increase in their overall risk score during service.

• On average, youth with assessments at multiple time periods spent about 6 months (181 days) participating in JCP services (80% of youth were in service for 0-10 months).

Table 3. Changes in Total Risk Score by Risk Level7

Risk Level at Initial Assessment

# of Youth

(%)

Percent with Reduced Risk

Score

Percent with No Change in

Risk Score

Percent with Increased Risk Score

Low Risk (0-5 risk indicators present and/or protective indicators lacking)

144 (24%) 40% 22% 39%8

Medium Risk (6-13 risk indicators present and/or protective indicators lacking)

256 (43%) 60% 10% 30%

High Risk (14+ risk indicators present and/or protective indicators lacking)

198 (33%) 80% 3% 17%

Total Sample 598 62% 11% 28%

• For youth with risk indicators present on the Initial Assessment, individual risk items showed reductions ranging from 24%-80%, with notable reductions in the school and behavior domains (ranging from 73%-80%). The highest risk reductions occurred for the following items:

o School dropout, has stopped attending school or is not enrolled (80% reduction). Four out of five youth who were not in school at the initial assessment were back in an educational program at the time of the reassessment.

7 See Appendix A for details of risk level and risk reduction by demographics and data source. See Appendix B for details of risk reduction within demographic groups. See Appendix C for details of risk level and risk reduction for youth ages 9 and younger (youth outside of the intended population for JCP services). 8 It is possible that some youth underreport their risks at the initial assessment and some relevant information is learned later, once staff develop a relationship with the youth and family. In addition, youth will accumulate risks over time, so it is possible these youth received less service since they were low risk and then accumulated more risks due potentially to maturation effects.


Page 4 of 15

o Aggressive, disruptive behavior at school during the past month (79% reduction). Four out of five youth who displayed recent problematic behavior at school at the initial assessment were not displaying this behavior at the time of the reassessment.

o In the past month, youth’s behavior has hurt others or put them in danger (73% reduction). Three out of four youth who were exhibiting recent dangerous behavior at the initial assessment were not exhibiting this behavior at the time of the reassessment.

o In the past month, youth has run away for at least 1 day/night9 (73% reduction). Three out of four youth who had recently run away at the initial assessment had not recently run away at the time of the reassessment.

• Those youth lacking protective indicators on the Initial Assessment showed gains in protection ranging from 24% to 68%. The highest protection increases occurred for:

o There is an adult in the youth’s life (other than a parent) she/he can talk to (68% increase). More than two thirds of youth who did not have an adult in their lives at the initial assessment reported having this support at the time of the reassessment.

o Significant school attachment (54% increase). Over half of the youth who were not connected to school at the initial assessment were engaged at the time of the reassessment.

Improvements in the School Domain • Youth with at least one issue in the school domain on the Initial Assessment: 70%

Table 4. School Issues and Changes over Time10

Risk Indicator

Number of youth with indicator

reported on Initial Assessment

Number of youth with indicator reported on

Reassessment Percent change

Academic failure 313 119 62% decrease

Chronic truancy 243 86 65% decrease

School dropout 80 16 80% decrease

Protective Indicator

Number of youth WITHOUT

protective indicator reported on the

Initial Assessment

Number of youth WITH protective indicator

reported on the Reassessment Percent change

Significant school attachment/commitment 320 174 54% increase

9 In the most recent JCP Validation Study, this item was highly related to re-offending (NPC Research, 2011). 10 On average, the time in service was 6 months.


Page 5 of 15

Figure 1. Decreases in School Risk Indicators

313

243

80

119

86

160

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Academic failure Chronic truancy School dropout

# of youth with indicator oninitial assessment

# of youth with indicator onreassessment

80% decrease

62% decrease

65% decrease


Page 6 of 15

Reductions in Juvenile Crime Youth with criminal referrals prior to participating in JCP prevention programs/services decreased their subsequent rate of referrals compared to the rate prior to JCP involvement.11 Most youth without a criminal referral in the year prior to JCP stayed out of the system after their involvement in JCP.

• 20% of the youth in this evaluation had no criminal referral in the 12 months prior to participating in JCP services. o Of this group of at-risk youth, 86% had no criminal referrals in the 12 months after the

start of JCP services. • 80% of JCP youth had at least one criminal referral in the 12 months prior to the start of

JCP services. o Of this group of offenders, 63% had no additional criminal referrals in the 12 months after

the start of JCP services.

Table 5. Criminal Referrals Post JCP Entry by Risk Level for All JCP Youth12

Risk Level at Initial Assessment

Percent with No Criminal

Referrals Post JCP

Percent with 1 or 2

Crimes Post JCP

Percent with 3 or more Crimes

Post JCP (chronic) Low Risk (0-5 risk indicators present and/or protective indicators lacking) 81% (115) 17% (24) 2% (3)


68% (177) 26% (66) 6% (16)

High Risk (14+ risk indicators present and/or protective indicators lacking)13 58% (110) 33% (62) 10% (18)

Total Sample (591 youth) 68% (402) 26% (152) 6% (37)

11 Includes youth under 17 years of age who started JCP services prior to 10/31/2016. 12 Table 5 includes criminal referrals post JCP involvement for all JCP youth, regardless of whether they entered JCP services with prior criminal referrals. 13 Based on the validation study of the JCP assessment, we know that high-risk youth are likely to have at least a 75% chance of a new referral in 12 months. In this sample, only 49% of high-risk youth had a new referral in the 12 months after starting JCP. Similarly, medium risk youth have between a 50% and 75% likelihood of a new criminal referral within 12 months.


Page 7 of 15

Figure 2. Criminal Referrals 12 Months Post JCP Service

68%

32% Proportion with noCriminal Referrals Post JCP(68%)Proportion with One orMore Criminal ReferralsPost JCP (32%)

For more information, please contact Anna Malsch at (503) 413-9098, or [email protected].

of 15

Appendix A: Youth Demographic Information by Risk Level and Change in Risk Level

The table on the next page describes the demographic profile of each of the groups of youth by column heading. That is, the proportion of males and females, age, and proportion of racial/ethnic background is presented for the entire sample, and for the sub-groups of youth based on the risk level they had at intake and whether they had change in their number of risk indicators over time.

The proportion of males among youth of color is greater and one explanation for why we see the pattern of increased risk over time points to the importance of examining whether those youth are receiving culturally appropriate services.

of 15

Table A1. Youth Demographic Information by Risk Level and Change in Risk Level14

All (Initial)15 N = 808

Low Risk at Entry

(I & R)16 n = 144

Med Risk at Entry (I & R) n = 256

High Risk at Entry (I & R) n = 198

Reduced Risk Level (I

& R) n = 369

No Change in Risk

Level (I & R)

n = 63

Increased Risk Level

(I & R) n = 166

Gender Male 66% (533) 75% (108) 68% (175) 58%17 (114) 62% (227) 79% (50) 72% (120)

Female 34% (275) 25% (36) 32% (81) 42% (84) 38% (142) 21% (13) 28% (46) Age

Average (mean) 14 years 14 years 14 years 14 years 14 years 14 years 14 years Range 7-18 years 7-18 years 8-18 years 8-18 years 7-18 years 10-18 years 7-17 years

Race/Ethnicity White 66% (808) 75% (108) 62% (158) 62% (123) 71% (262) 65% (41) 52% (86)

Hispanic/Latino 18% (147) 12% (18) 20% (51) 20% (40) 15% (56) 21% (13) 24% (40) Multiple races/ethnicities 5% (44) 5% (7) 7% (17) 6% (11) 4% (14) ɫ 18 8% (14)

Native American 3% (26) ɫ 4% (9) 4% (7) 2% (9) ɫ 4% (6) African American 6% (51) 5% (7) 8% (20) 8% (15) 5% (19) ɫ 12% (20)

Asian/Pacific Islander/ Native Hawaiian 1% (6) ɫ ɫ ɫ ɫ ɫ ɫ

14 Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. 15 These youth (n = 808) had an initial assessment. There were two additional youth who had only the reassessment. 16 These youth (n = 598) had both an initial and reassessment and therefore are in the group in which change over time can be measured. 17 Girls are overrepresented in the high-risk group, and there are proportionally more boys in the low-risk group. Older youth and the high-risk younger group were more likely to be in the reduced risk categories. Girls appear to be responding better to services than boys. 18 To protect youth confidentiality: “ɫ” refers to groups of one to four youth.

of 15

Appendix B: Changes in Total Risk Score by Risk Level – Demographic Details19

The following tables provide additional details to describe the results of Table 3 in the main summary report, p. 3, which illustrates changes in risk score for the entire sample of youth.

Differences in percentages between tables are not necessarily statistically significant. Once the data are divided into multiple categories, the sample sizes become small, so interpretations of some comparisons must be made with caution. However, differences by race20,21 are worth noting and may highlight some areas where additional services, staff training, or resources are needed.

19 Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. 20 There were fewer than five youth identifying as Asian. To protect their identity, their data are not included in this appendix. 21 Data on the youth in the Tribal Programs were not included in this report.

of 15

Changes by Gender Appendix B1. Changes in Total Risk Score by Risk Level: MALES

Risk Level at Initial Assessment # of Youth

(%)

Percent with Reduced

Risk Score

Percent with No Change

in Risk Score



108 (27%) 37% 25% 38%


175 (44%) 55% 10% 35%


114 (29%) 80% 4% 16%

Total Sample 397 57% 13% 30%

Appendix B2. Changes in Total Risk Score by Risk Level: FEMALES


(%)


Risk Score


in Risk Score



36 (18%) 47% 11% 42%


81 (40%) 70% 10% 20%


84 (42%) 81% 1% 18%

Total Sample 201 71% 7% 23%

of 15

Changes by Race

Appendix B3. Changes in Total Risk Score by Ethnicity22,23


(%)


Risk Score


in Risk Score


White 389 67% 11% 22%

Hispanic/Latino 109 51% 12% 37%

African American 42 45% 7% 48%

Multiple Race/Ethnicities 37 51% 11% 38%

Native American 17 53% 12% 35%

Total Sample 59824 62% 11% 28%

22 There were fewer than five youth identifying as Asian. To protect their identity, their data are not included in this appendix. 23 Data on the youth in the Tribal Programs were not included in this report. 24 The total sample (n = 598) does not equal the sum due to youth identifying as Asian not being included.

of 15

Changes by Age

Appendix B4. Changes in Total Risk Score by Risk Level: AGE 13 OR YOUNGER (7-13)


(%)


Risk Score


in Risk Score



40 (20%) 30% 20% 50%


88 (43%) 47% 15% 40%


75 (37%) 81% 3% 16%

Total Sample 203 56% 11% 33%

Appendix B5. Changes in Total Risk Score by Risk Level: AGE 14 AND OLDER (14-18)


(%)


Risk Score


in Risk Score



104 (26%) 43% 22% 35%


168 (43%) 67% 8% 26%


123 (31%) 80% 3% 17%

Total Sample 395 65% 10% 25%

of 15

Appendix C: Demographics and Risk Level for Youth 9 Years of Age or Younger

The table on the next page illustrates the demographic and risk information for younger youth in the JCP evaluation sample. A majority of these youth experienced changes in risk score over time. Younger youth were disproportionally male. They were also less likely to be White, Native, or Asian, and more likely to be Hispanic/Latino or multi-racial. Note: The latest validation of the JCP Assessment in 2012 (for 2009–2011) had children and youth that ranged in age from 6 to 17. These were youth from JJIS, though many juvenile departments do not actually serve youth younger than 10. The tool was validated for the entire age range and there were no groups of youth for whom the tool did not “work,” though the numbers in the 6–8 year old range were very small. Results of the validation study did not yield any patterns that would have indicated it was not a useful tool for the younger youth. As part of the tool development process, a review of the research specific to the younger group was conducted and items were selected that were relevant across the entire age spectrum. Research suggests that younger children do not have as many accumulative risks simply because they have not had the opportunity due to their age. Many of the risks accumulate over time chronologically; therefore, older youth tend to have more risk indicators. When risk indicators are observed in the younger youth it is certainly notable. It is important if using the assessment with younger youth that they understand the concepts/questions—the skill of the interviewer with any individual child/youth is important in being able to explain questions, develop rapport, elicit information, and help the youth understand what is being asked. The other issue is how to serve the younger youth and if the JCP services in that area are appropriate for younger youth. When younger youth have multiple risk factors, it is worth paying attention to that, even if they are referred out to other services.

of 15

Table C1. Demographics and Risk Level for JCP Youth 9 Years of Age or Younger, 2015-1725 Biennium

7–9 year olds

# of youth 1826

Male 78%

Female 22%

White 50%

Hispanic/Latino 28%

Multiple Races ɫ27

African American ɫ

Native American 0%

Asian/Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiian 0%

Risk levels at initial assessment (for youth with both initial and reassessment)

# w/ matched assessment 14

Low 28%

Medium 50%

High 22%

Change in risk level (from initial to reassessment)

Decrease 43%

No Change 0%

Increase 57%

25 Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. 26 18 youth represents 2% of the total group of JCP youth for this biennium 27 To protect youth confidentiality: “ɫ“ refers to groups of one to four youth.

Juvenile Crime Prevention Program Evaluation Summary 2015… · 2015, staff entered information...

Documents

Transcript of Juvenile Crime Prevention Program Evaluation Summary 2015… · 2015, staff entered information...