This annual report for the California Board of State and Community Corrections measures the success of Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act programs and initiatives for six state-mandated outcome measures (successful completion of probation, arrests, probation violations, incarcerations, successful completion of restitution, and successful completion of community service) and county-required supplemental measures.

Cover: Los Angeles County Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act
Read Online

Los Angeles County Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act

Fiscal Year 2011–2012 Report

by Terry Fain, Susan Turner, Sarah Michal Greathouse

Download eBook for Free

Full Document

FormatFile SizeNotes
PDF file 1.2 MB

Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience.

Summary Only

FormatFile SizeNotes
PDF file 0.2 MB

Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience.

Research Question

  1. In fiscal year 2011–2012, how successful were Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act programs and initiatives, as measured by the six state-mandated outcome measures and county-mandated supplemental measures?

California's Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act was designed to provide a stable funding source for juvenile programs that have been proven effective in curbing crime among at-risk and young offenders. It provides funds to counties to add evidence-based programs and services for juvenile probationers identified with higher needs for special services than those identified for routine probationers, at-risk youth who have not entered the probation system but who live or attend school in areas of high crime or who have other factors that potentially predispose them to criminal activities, and youth in juvenile halls and camps. The Board of State and Community Corrections is required to submit annual reports to the California state legislature measuring the program's success for six outcome measures: (1) successful completion of probation, (2) arrests, (3) probation violations, (4) incarcerations, (5) successful completion of restitution, and (6) successful completion of community service. Each county can also measure supplemental outcomes. For the six state-mandated outcomes, differences between program participants and comparison-group youth are mostly positive, though relatively small. County-developed supplemental outcomes, which measure performance of program participants at program entry and again at a later time, tend to be more favorable.

Key Findings

Differences Between Program Participants and Comparison-Group Youth Were Mostly Positive, Though Relatively Small

  • Participants in the Enhanced Mental Health Services initiative completed probation and community service at significantly higher rates than comparison-group youth. Comparison-group youth were significantly less likely than program participants to be arrested.
  • Participants in the Enhanced Services to High-Risk/High-Need Youth initiative had significantly higher rates of completion of probation, restitution, and community service than comparison-group youth.
  • Participants in the Enhanced School- and Community-Based Services initiative had significantly better outcomes than the comparison group on four of the six measures. Comparison-group youth had significantly fewer arrests and incarcerations; program youth had significantly higher rates of completion of probation, restitution, and community service and lower rates of probation violations.

County-Developed Supplemental Outcomes Tend to Be More Favorable

  • Supplemental outcomes for all three programs in the Enhanced Mental Health Services initiative that qualified for statistical testing were significantly improved in the six months after program entry.
  • In the Enhanced Services to High-Risk/High-Need Youth initiative, the relevant supplemental outcomes for Gender-Specific Community and High Risk/High Need program participants were significantly improved in the six months after entering the program.
  • In the Enhanced School- and Community-Based Services initiative, for the programs that used educational measures as supplemental outcomes, school attendance improved significantly in the term following program entry, and school suspensions and expulsions were significantly reduced. All other supplemental outcomes that had enough successful outcomes to allow statistical testing showed significant improvement, except for special incident reports in the Inside-Out Writers program, in which there was no significant difference in rates between the two periods measured.

Recommendation

  • Increase the amount of data available for supplemental outcomes for all Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act programs.

Table of Contents

  • Chapter One

    Background and Methodology

  • Chapter Two

    Current JJCPA Programs and FY 2011-2012 Outcome Measures

  • Chapter Three

    Juvenile Justice Costs for JJCPA Participants

  • Chapter Four

    Summary and Conclusions

  • Appendix A

    Community Providers of JJCPA Program Services

  • Appendix B

    Comparison Groups and Reference Periods for JJCPA Programs

  • Appendix C

    Probation's Ranking of the Big Six Outcome Measures

  • Appendix D

    Community-Based Organizations at Contracted to Provide Services for JJCPA Programs in FY 2011-2012

  • Appendix E

    Board of State and Community Corrections-Mandated and Supplemental Outcomes for Individual JJCPA Programs, FY 2011-2012

  • Appendix F

    Board of State and Community Corrections–Mandated Outcomes, by Gender

  • Appendix G

    Board of State and Community Corrections–Mandated Outcomes, by Cluster

This research was prepared for the Los Angeles County Probation Department and conducted in the Safety and Justice Program within RAND Justice, Infrastructure, and Environment.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation Research report series. RAND reports present research findings and objective analysis that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND reports undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity.

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.