Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

PCCYFS 2012 Annual Spring Conference The Berks County Juvenile Justice System Improvement Project Presented by: Robert N. Williams: Berks County Juvenile.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "PCCYFS 2012 Annual Spring Conference The Berks County Juvenile Justice System Improvement Project Presented by: Robert N. Williams: Berks County Juvenile."— Presentation transcript:

1 PCCYFS 2012 Annual Spring Conference The Berks County Juvenile Justice System Improvement Project Presented by: Robert N. Williams: Berks County Juvenile Probation Office Richard D. Steele: Juvenile Court Judges’ Commission

2 PCCYFS 2012 Annual Spring Conference 2 Evolution of an Evidence Based Probation Department The search for structured decision- making and assessment devices The “JJSES” is born Initial EBP training Utilizing MacArthur funding Motivational interviewing Georgetown invitation

3 PCCYFS 2012 Annual Spring Conference 3 Georgetown University’s Center for Juvenile Justice Reform December 2010 release of “Improving the Effectiveness of Juvenile Justice Programs: A New Perspective on Evidence-Based Practice” March 2011 call for letters of interest to participate in the Juvenile Justice System Improvement Project (JJSIP) Berks partners with JCJC and PCCD to apply

4 PCCYFS 2012 Annual Spring Conference 4 JJSIP May 2011: Berks/PA one of four sites selected nationally Other sites selected: –Pinellas County, Florida –Maricopa County, Arizona –Hartford, Connecticut

5 PCCYFS 2012 Annual Spring Conference 5 JJSIP Goal The reduction of crime and delinquency and improved positive outcomes for youth in the juvenile justice system through the implementation of efficient and effective juvenile justice administration.

6 PCCYFS 2012 Annual Spring Conference 6 JJSIP Expected Outcomes Reduced recidivism rates for juvenile offenders Reduced utilization of detention and out- of-home placement, particularly for lower risk offenders Reduced racial and ethnic disparities and disproportionality in juvenile justice processing

7 PCCYFS 2012 Annual Spring Conference 7 JJSIP Expected Outcomes Increased probation completion rates among juvenile offenders More efficient use of resources Decreased school dropout, increased school attendance, performance and stability of school placement among juvenile offenders Reduced mental health symptoms and substance abuse among juvenile offenders

8 PCCYFS 2012 Annual Spring Conference 8 JJSIP Components OJJDP’s Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent and Chronic Juvenile Offenders: James C. Howell and John Wilson The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol: Dr. Mark Lipsey

9 PCCYFS 2012 Annual Spring Conference 9 Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent and Chronic Juvenile Offenders Developed by Howell and Wilson for OJJDP in the 1990’s The “probation” aspect of the JJSIP Suggests a comprehensive framework and continuum of services from prevention to aftercare

10 PCCYFS 2012 Annual Spring Conference 10 CS Core Principles Strengthen the family in its primary responsibility Support core social institutions such as schools, religious institutions and community organizations Promote delinquency prevention as the most cost-effective approach Intervene immediately and effectively when delinquent behavior occurs Identify and control the small group of SVC juvenile offenders

11 PCCYFS 2012 Annual Spring Conference 11 Research Basis for the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent and Chronic Juvenile Offenders We know the key features of juvenile offender careers We understand how offender careers develop We have effective programs for reducing the risk of re-offending We have “forward-looking” administrative tools for managing offender risk and matching youth to programs

12 PCCYFS 2012 Annual Spring Conference 12 Non-Serious Non-Violent Non-Chronic 64% Serious 34% Chronic 15% Violent 8% C,S & V 4% Maricopa Co. Study (N=151,209) Sixteen Cohorts of Juvenile Offender Court Careers

13 PCCYFS 2012 Annual Spring Conference 13 Maricopa County Study Key Findings Almost two-thirds (64%) of juvenile court careers were nonchronic (less than four referrals) and did not include any serious or violent offenses; 18% of all careers had serious (but nonviolent) offenses, 8% had violent offenses, and 4% of the careers had serious, violent, and chronic offenses.

14 PCCYFS 2012 Annual Spring Conference 14 Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent and Chronic Juvenile Offenders

15 PCCYFS 2012 Annual Spring Conference 15 Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent and Chronic Juvenile Offenders The CS is a two-tiered system for responding proactively to delinquency The first tier (prevention, youth development and early intervention) focuses on reducing the likelihood that at-risk youth will enter the juvenile justice system The second tier (interventions and graduated sanctions) addresses risk factors of system youth with a focus on SVC offenders

16 PCCYFS 2012 Annual Spring Conference 16 Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent and Chronic Juvenile Offenders But we aren’t funded or don’t have the time to address prevention! At the very least, you need to be involved in community prevention efforts to ensure that risk factors observed in kids referred to the court are being addressed Do you have diversion programs in place?

17 PCCYFS 2012 Annual Spring Conference 17 CS Intervention and Graduated Sanctions Highlights Build a seamless continuum of services with graduated placement levels Utilize structured decision making instruments across the continuum Match offenders to the appropriate level of supervision and services based on the R-N assessment Place low risk offenders in community programs with minimal supervision

18 PCCYFS 2012 Annual Spring Conference 18 CS Intervention and Graduated Sanctions Highlights Medium risk offenders are typically placed in more structured community- based programs with greater supervision Very high risk offenders are typically placed in residential settings SVC offenders make up <10% of the offending population

19 PCCYFS 2012 Annual Spring Conference 19 CS Intervention and Graduated Sanctions Highlights Most juvenile offenders enter the system with minor offenses and low recidivism risk Some minor offenders are on pathways toward serious, violent and chronic offending Risk assessment devices are available that measure risk well enough to guide allocation of system response and effort To be effective, interventions should address priority treatment needs as identified through assessment

20 PCCYFS 2012 Annual Spring Conference 20 Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (Spep) The “provider” aspect of the JJSIP Based on Dr. Mark Lipsey’s meta-analysis work with nearly 700 research studies over the past twenty years Juveniles aged in programs aimed at reducing delinquency Focus on the programs’ effects on recidivism (reoffending)

21 PCCYFS 2012 Annual Spring Conference 21 SPEP Defined The SPEP is a validated, data driven rating scheme for determining how well an existing program matches research evidence for the effectiveness of that particular program for reducing the recidivism of juvenile offenders More simply put, the SPEP is a tool for comparing juvenile justice programs to what has been found effective for reducing recidivism in the research Effectiveness = the ability to reduce the recidivism of juveniles receiving a program compared to a control group that does not receive the program

22 PCCYFS 2012 Annual Spring Conference 22 Effects on recidivism analyzed as a function of program characteristics © Copyright held by Mark W. Lipsey, Peabody Research Institute, Vanderbilt University. Not to be copied or used without explicit permission.

23 PCCYFS 2012 Annual Spring Conference 23 Program types sorted by general approach: Average recidivism effect © Copyright held by Mark W. Lipsey, Peabody Research Institute, Vanderbilt University. Not to be copied or used without explicit permission.

24 PCCYFS 2012 Annual Spring Conference 24 Further sorting by intervention type within, e.g., counseling approaches © Copyright held by Mark W. Lipsey, Peabody Research Institute, Vanderbilt University. Not to be copied or used without explicit permission.

25 PCCYFS 2012 Annual Spring Conference 25 Further sorting by intervention type within, e.g., skill-building approaches © Copyright held by Mark W. Lipsey, Peabody Research Institute, Vanderbilt University. Not to be copied or used without explicit permission.

26 PCCYFS 2012 Annual Spring Conference 26 Many types of therapeutic interventions thus have evidence of effectiveness … but there’s a catch: Though their average effects on recidivism are positive, larger and smaller effects are distributed around that average. This means that some variants of the intervention show large positive effects, but others show negligible or even negative effects. © Copyright held by Mark W. Lipsey, Peabody Research Institute, Vanderbilt University. Not to be copied or used without explicit permission.

27 PCCYFS 2012 Annual Spring Conference 27 Example: Recidivism effects from 29 studies of family interventions Family Interventions Covariate-Adjusted Recidivism Effect Sizes (N=29) Effect Size (zPhi coefficient) >.00 Average recidivism reduction of 13% Median © Copyright held by Mark W. Lipsey, Peabody Research Institute, Vanderbilt University. Not to be copied or used without explicit permission.

28 PCCYFS 2012 Annual Spring Conference Where are the brand name model programs in this distribution? Family Interventions Covariate-Adjusted Recidivism Effect Sizes (N=29) Effect Size (zPhi coefficient) >.00 Median MST FFT © Copyright held by Mark W. Lipsey, Peabody Research Institute, Vanderbilt University. Not to be copied or used without explicit permission.

29 PCCYFS 2012 Annual Spring Conference 29 SPEP BASICS Lipsey’s analysis looked at how a program’s components are related to its impact on recidivism He identified the primary characteristics of effective interventions with delinquents The SPEP creates a metric by assigning points to service programs according to how closely their characteristics match those programs of as given type that show the best recidivism outcomes

30 PCCYFS 2012 Annual Spring Conference 30 SPEP BASICS Lipsey found that the effects of juvenile delinquency interventions are mainly related to four key aspects of an intervention: –Type of program/service –Quantity or dosage amount –Service quality –Juvenile risk level

31 PCCYFS 2012 Annual Spring Conference 31 SPEP BASICS The SPEP is used only to evaluate therapeutic services (services oriented mainly toward facilitating constructive internalized sustained changes in behavior) Therapeutic services include: –Restorative services – Counseling and its variants – Skill-building services – Services for special populations Control-oriented services and services for which there is insufficient research are not able to be rated

32 PCCYFS 2012 Annual Spring Conference 32 SPEP BASICS Many types of programs for diverse needs are supported by evidence: –Interpersonal skills –Family and parenting –Individual counseling –Life Skills –Sex offender treatment –Cognitive-behavioral –Challenge programs –Milieu therapy Victim-offender mediation Drug & alcohol treatment Behavioral & incentive Group counseling Social casework Educational Vocational Psychodynamic

33 PCCYFS 2012 Annual Spring Conference 33 SPEP PROCESS Identify programs being provided to offenders Break programs down into services that can be matched with research-based categories Collect demographic, risk, quality and quantity data for each service Enter data into the SPEP model to generate SPEP score Evaluate performance based on SPEP components and overall score

34 PCCYFS 2012 Annual Spring Conference 34 SPEP SCORING Points are assigned to each category based on the findings of Lipsey’s research Points are proportionate to the contribution of each rated factor to recidivism reduction Target values are set from either the meta-analysis (generic) or program manual for blueprint programs The SPEP is configured to so that the maximum total score for any service is 100 points

35 PCCYFS 2012 Annual Spring Conference 35 Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) for Services to Juvenile Offenders © Recalibrated version, 2012 Points Possible Points Received Primary and Supplemental Service Types [Identified according to definitions derived from the research] Primary Service Type for Program Being Rated Group 1 services (5 points)Group 4 services (25 points) Group 2 services (10 points)Group 5 services (30 points) Group 3 services (15 points) 30 Supplemental Service Type Qualifying supplemental service used: Yes (5 points) No (0 points) 5 Quality of Service Delivery [Determined from a systematic assessment of the relevant features of the provider and provider organization] Rated quality of services delivered: Low (5 points) Medium (10 points) High (20 points) 20 Amount of Service [Determined from data for the qualifying group of service recipients] Duration [Target number of weeks specified for each service type] % of youth who received at least the target weeks of service: 0% (0 points)60% (6 points) 20% (2 points)80% (8 points) 40% (4 points)99% (10 points) 10 Contact Hours [Target number of hours specified for each service type] % of youth who received at least the target hours of service: 0% (0 points)60% (6 points) 20% (2 points)80% (8 points) 40% (4 points)99% (10 points) 10 Risk Level of Youth Served [Determined from risk ratings on a valid instrument for the qualifying group of service recipients] % of youth with at least the target risk score set for the JJ system: 0% (0 points)60% (15 points) 20% (5 points)80% (20 points) 40% (10 points)99% (25 points) 25 Provider’s Total SPEP Score 100 (Insert Score) Points assigned proportionat e to the contribution of each factor to recidivism reduction Target values from the meta- analysis (generic) OR program manual (manualized)

36 PCCYFS 2012 Annual Spring Conference 36 Understanding A Spep Score The SPEP score is configured so that the total score indicates how closely the key characteristics of a rated program match those of the programs of that type that showed at least average positive effects in the corresponding research The difference between the scores for the individual SPEP components and the maximum values possible for each provide a diagnostic information about where the rated program can improve

37 PCCYFS 2012 Annual Spring Conference 37 Understanding A Spep Score SPEP scores have been shown to relate to programs’ effects on recidivism and can thus provide useful guidance for program evaluation and improvement However, there are almost certainly other factors related to a program's effectiveness that should be taken into consideration, most notably the clinical quality of the interaction between juveniles and their service providers

38 PCCYFS 2012 Annual Spring Conference 38 I’ve Got My Score, Now What? Scores should be considered a baseline and a road map for program improvement What can I do to increase my score? How can I work with probation and the courts to improve my effectiveness?

39 PCCYFS 2012 Annual Spring Conference 39 Hypothetical SPEP Score

40 PCCYFS 2012 Annual Spring Conference 40 Program Improvement Strategies PRIMARY SERVICE (5-30 points) Are there any circumstances where a provider might consider changing the primary service? Dosage requirements can’t be met due to caseload sizes Service not meeting the needs of the target population A more potent service?

41 PCCYFS 2012 Annual Spring Conference 41 Program Improvement Strategies SUPPLEMENTAL SERVICE (0 or 5 points) Can a supplemental service be added that fits (reinforces or augments) with the primary service?

42 PCCYFS 2012 Annual Spring Conference 42 Program Improvement Strategies AMOUNT OF SERVICE DURATION (0-10 points) CONTACT HOURS (0-10 points) Are youth receiving the target amount of service? How can retention be improved? Are youth removed beyond your control? Are therapist caseload sizes preventing the meeting of dosage requirements?

43 PCCYFS 2012 Annual Spring Conference 43 Program Improvement Strategies QUALITY OF SERVICE (5-20 points) What are the quality indicators? Manualized protocols Training, coaching and feedback Monitoring to maintain fidelity How is corrective action taken when staff departs from protocol or quality lapses?

44 PCCYFS 2012 Annual Spring Conference 44 Program Improvement Strategies RISK LEVEL (0-25 points) More points given for the % of high-risk youth involved in the program Consider inclusionary and/or exclusionary admission criteria with preferred risk level indicated At the mercy of the courts?

45 PCCYFS 2012 Annual Spring Conference 45 Hypothetical Second Year Score

46 PCCYFS 2012 Annual Spring Conference 46 Why Do Some Programs Fail to Respond to the Researcher’s Call for Change? Strong skepticism about the applicability of research to practice. A strong belief across systems (counselors, program administrators, judges, POs) that the program already works. A belief that the program delivers other more important outcomes beyond recidivism reduction. Legitimate funding challenges associated with change. Pride!

47 PCCYFS 2012 Annual Spring Conference 47 SPEP BEST PRACTICE GUIDELINES Therapeutic approaches are more effective Larger effects will be seen with higher risk youth The amount of service should at least match the average of effective programming according to the research High quality implementation, including treatment protocols and monitoring for adherence, is important

48 PCCYFS 2012 Annual Spring Conference 48 JJSIP IMPLEMENTATION 18 month project Berks is the pilot site for an anticipated statewide rollout Elements of the JJSIP have already been incorporated into PA’s Juvenile Justice System Enhancement Strategy

49 PCCYFS 2012 Annual Spring Conference 49 History of JJSES Concept of JJSES “born” in June 2010 at JCJC/Chiefs Annual Strategic Planning Meeting Designed to organize / sustain “lessons learned” from Models for Change Risk/Need Assessment (YLS) activities were increasing – needed to move to the next stage EBP Exposure through Mark Carey Training Leadership Team created Keith Snyder, Coordinator (JCJC) Bob Tomassini (Adams) Bob Williams (Berks) Sam Miller (Cumberland) Beth Fritz (Lehigh) Mike Pennington (PCCD) Rick Steele (JCJC) Statement of Purpose Developed

50 PCCYFS 2012 Annual Spring Conference 50 JJSES Statement of Purpose We dedicate ourselves to working in partnership to enhance the capacity of Pennsylvania’s juvenile justice system to achieve its balanced and restorative justice mission by: –Employing evidence-based practices, with fidelity, at every stage of the juvenile justice process; –Collecting and analyzing the data necessary to measure the results of these efforts; and, with this knowledge, –Striving to continuously improve the quality of our decisions, services and programs.

51 PCCYFS 2012 Annual Spring Conference 51 “Statement of Purpose” Endorsements Juvenile Court Judges’ Commission (JCJC) Juvenile Court Section of the Pa. Conference of State Trial Judges Pa. Council of Chief Juvenile Probation Officers Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Committee of the Pa. Commission on Crime and Delinquency County Juvenile Probation Departments/Juvenile Courts Over 30 service provider organizations and agencies (including JDCAP, PCCYFS, PCPA)

52 PCCYFS 2012 Annual Spring Conference 52 Leadership Team’s Initial Activities Identification of various initiatives / activities Who’s “in charge”? Where is the “home” of each initiative / activity? What’s the status of each initiative / activity? Is there a sustainability plan?

53 PCCYFS 2012 Annual Spring Conference 53 Elements of Pennsylvania’s Models for Change Initiatives

54 PCCYFS 2012 Annual Spring Conference 54 Challenges: The pieces of the puzzle were at various stages of implementation among jurisdictions How do we “transform” the pieces of the puzzle into a comprehensive strategy? What is the recommended sequence of activities for probation departments, providers, and others? Do we have the necessary infrastructure to support implementation of each element? Communications strategy Stakeholder involvement What does “evidence-based” really mean?

55 PCCYFS 2012 Annual Spring Conference 55 Programs / interventions can be placed along a “proof of effectiveness” continuum How confident are we that a program will improve outcomes? Not much confidence Best Practices “We’ve done it and we like it” Promising Practices “We really think this will work… but we need time to prove it” Research-based “This program is based on sound theory informed by research” Evidence-based “This program has been rigorously evaluated and shown to work” Very much confidence Bumbarger, B. K. (2009). Promoting the Use of Evidence-based Prevention: Application in the Real World. Available online at https://breeze.psu.edu/p https://breeze.psu.edu/p

56 PCCYFS 2012 Annual Spring Conference 56 Intermediate Goals / Activities Work with The Carey Group to develop a framework for an implementation strategy Create a JJSES Workgroup to achieve broader juvenile justice system representation and involvement Develop a JJSES “Monograph” Develop infrastructure to support activities Integrate “lessons learned” from PA’s participation in the Juvenile Justice System Improvement Project (JJSIP)

57 PCCYFS 2012 Annual Spring Conference 57 JJSES Framework Achieving our Balanced and Restorative Justice Mission

58 PCCYFS 2012 Annual Spring Conference 58 What Can We Expect? “Research has shown that the risk of recidivism is greatly reduced (10-30% on average) when attention is paid to criminogenic needs.” SOURCE: D.A.Andrews, I. Zinger, R.D. Hoge, J. Bonta, P. Gendreau and F.T. Cullen, Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta- analysis, Criminology, 28 (1990); Andrews (2007)

59 PCCYFS 2012 Annual Spring Conference 59 Goals for 2012 PCCD planning/implementation grants to support local implementation of JJSES 6 Regional training programs for county teams Development of JJSES Monograph and “How To” Guide for Chief Juvenile Probation Officers County survey to determine extent to which elements of JJSES Framework have been implemented Development of Leadership Academy / management training curricula Carey Guide training

60 PCCYFS 2012 Annual Spring Conference 60 Goals for 2012 Phase IV (Final) YLS County Training Rollout of Standardized Case Plan tied to YLS assessments Development of online “Program and Practice Effectiveness Tool Kit” to clarify definitions and list evidence-based curricula Increased capacity of Resource Center for Evidence-based Programs and practices Increase capacity of PaJCMS data analysis infrastructure Development of infrastructure to support statewide implementation of SPEP

61 PCCYFS 2012 Annual Spring Conference 61 Contact Information Robert N. Williams Chief Juvenile Probation Officer Berks County Juvenile Probation Office Richard D. Steele Director of Policy & Program Development Juvenile Court Judges’ Commission


Download ppt "PCCYFS 2012 Annual Spring Conference The Berks County Juvenile Justice System Improvement Project Presented by: Robert N. Williams: Berks County Juvenile."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google