Examining the Impact of Evidence-Based Interventions on
Pennsylvania Delinquency Placement Rates
Julia E. Moore & Brian K. Bumbarger
The EPISCenter, Prevention Research Center, Penn State University
Background: The PA EBP Initiative
PENNSYLVANIA’S EVIDENCE-BASED PROGRAMS (EBP) INITIATIVE
Goal 1: Examine delinquency
placement rates from 1999 to 2008
•Funded by the PA Commission on Crime and Delinquency (PCCD) to disseminate
evidence-based delinquency & violence prevention programs
•Since 1998, grants have been awarded to 120+ PA communities to fund nearly 200
replications of EBPs throughout the state
Placement Trend Data: 1999-2008
Overall Sustainability Rate
Goal 2: Compare placement rates in
counties providing FFT, MST, or
MTFC to those that have not
Placement Rate (Placements as % of Dispositions)
Counties With vs. Without EBIs
8,000
7,000
The goal of the PA EBP initiative is to make more efficient use of state &
federal resources by directing them to strategies that are most likely to
impact delinquency.
10.0%
9.5%
9.0%
8.5%
8.0%
7.5%
7.0%
6.5%
6.0%
5.5%
5.0%
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
HOW DOES IT WORK?
2,000
•Utilizing the Communities That Care model, community coalitions conduct a local risk and
resource assessment to identify and prioritize risk and protective factors, then select EBPs to
address these identified targets
1,000
•PCCD provides 4 years of funding, with a 25% local match in Year 3 and 50% match in Year
4, to implement the selected EBP
•Grantee must demonstrate ongoing relationship with local collaborative board and collect
outcome and implementation data to use for impact assessment and quality improvement
2005
0
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Note: Red line indicates change in the way delinquency dispositions were measured.
Placements as Percentage of Delinquency Dispositions
2007
Implementing MST, FFT, MTFC
2008
The total number of delinquency dispositions has increased slightly over the
past decade, in 2000 there were 41,898 delinquency dispositions, compared
to 43,754 in 2008, a 4.4% increase.
2006
No Program
2005
Mean (SD)
0.081 (0.047)
With Program 0.066 (0.043)
2008
Not Implementing Any
2006
2007
N
53
Mean (SD)
0.091 (0.063)
N
46
Mean (SD)
0.081 (0.047)
N
30
2008
Mean (SD)
N
0.077 (0.041)
24
14
0.067 (0.049)
21
0.069 (0.048)
37
0.075 (0.041)
43
Conclusions and Recommendations
A TEST-BED FOR TYPE 2 TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH
16.0%
•In 2001, PCCD formed a partnership with Penn State’s Prevention Research Center to
provide technical assistance to grantees and study the process of program dissemination,
leading to the creation of the Evidence-based Prevention and Intervention Support Center
(EPISCenter) in 2008
14.0%
Overall Conclusions
12.0%
• Delinquency dispositions are increasing, but both the number of new placements
and the rate of placement have gone down significantly.
Policy-Driven Research
PROGRAMS FOR CHILDREN AT-RISK OF DELINQUENCY DISPOSITIONS AND
PLACEMENTS
• Functional Family Therapy - an empirically grounded family intervention program for
dysfunctional and at-risk youth aged 11-18 and their families, including youth with problems
such as conduct disorder, violent acting-out, and substance abuse
• Multisystemic Therapy - an intensive family and community-based treatment that
addresses the multiple determinants of serious antisocial behavior in chronic, violent, or
substance abusing male or female juvenile offenders, ages 12 to 17, at high risk of
out-of-home placement
• Mulitdimentional Treatment Foster Care - a cost-effective alternative to group or
residential treatment, incarceration, and hospitalization for adolescents who have problems
with chronic antisocial behavior, emotional disturbance, and delinquency
10.0%
8.0%
• A small number of counties account for a disproportionate percentage of
placements, although this disparity has been decreasing.
6.0%
4.0%
• Counties implementing FFT, MST or MTFC have lower placement rates, which
could have large policy implications as a 1% reduction in placements state-wide
could save the state approximately $1 million.
2.0%
0.0%
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
The number of delinquency placements has decreased from 4,384 in 2000 to
3,454 in 2008, a 24.3% decrease.
Change in Dispositions and Placements (2000-2008)
10%
5%
0%
-5%
4.40%
Dispositions
Placements
-24.30%
-10%
-15%
A 1% reduction in placements state-wide could save the state
approximately $1 million
-20%
-25%
-30%
• Policymakers were interested in whether these programs were reducing delinquency
dispositions and placements in Pennsylvania.
Overall there was a 4.4% increase in delinquency dispositions, yet a 24.3%
decrease in delinquency placements.
Recommendations for Policymakers
• Although these programs are intended for youth at risk of placement, there is a
(sometimes conflicting) need to maintain a certain level of program placements,
which leads programs to seek referrals through a variety of sources.
• DPW could direct that youth who would otherwise be committed to out of home
placement be given priority consideration for these programs.
• Many youth who are not at “imminent” risk of placement might still end up being
placed eventually in the absence of effective preventive programming.
• There is a potential “floor effect” with placement rates, below which the system
may be also be seen as inefficient. It is not reasonable to expect NO youth to be
placed.
• This project revealed gaps in the available data to monitor placements and
referrals. The EPISCenter has recently established a reporting process for these
(MST, FFT, MTFC) programs to submit quarterly data on referral sources and
program impact on placements.
The EPISCenter is a project of the Prevention Research Center, College of Health and Human Development, Penn State University, and is funded by the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime
and Delinquency and the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare as a component of the Resource Center for Evidence-Based Prevention and Intervention Programs and Practices.