DJJDP’s Comprehensive
Delinquency Prevention &
Intervention Strategy
Buddy Howell
Pinehurst, NC
buddyhowell@nc.rr.com
The Need For a
Comprehensive Strategy
•
•
•
•
•
Poor matching of prevention programs
with risk factors for delinquency
Poor targeting of serious, violent and
chronic offenders
Little use of risk and needs
assessments
Poor matching of offenders with the
level of service
Over-use of detention and incarceration
NC’s Comprehensive Strategy
for Juvenile Delinquency
Problem Behavior > Noncriminal Misbehavior > Delinquency > Serious, Violent, and Chronic Offending
Prevention
Graduated Sanctions
Target Population: At-Risk Youth
Programs for
All Youth
>
Programs for Youth at
Greatest Risk
>
Immediate
Intervention
Target Population: Delinquent Youth
>
Intermediate
Sanctions
Community
> Confinement >
Training
Schools
>
Aftercare
Preventing youth from becoming
Improving the juvenile justice system
delinquent by focusing prevention
response to delinquent offenders
programs on at-risk youth
through a system of graduated
sanctions and a continuum of
treatment alternatives
Prevention and Intervention
Windows of Opportunity
Risk and Protective Factors
Family
Age 3
Conduct
Problems
Peer
Group
School
Age 6
Age 9
Elementary
School
Failure
Prevention
Source: Howell (2003)
Individual
Community
Characteristics
Age 12
Child
Delinquency
Early Intervention
Age 15
Gang
Member
Age 18
Serious and
Violent
Delinquency
Treatment
& Sanctions
Integrated Prevention and
Intervention
Risk/protective factors in the individual, family,
peer group, school, neighborhood
Conduct
Disorder
Prevention
Intervention
Early
Delinquency
Prevention
Intervention
Serious and
Violent Juvenile
Offending
Prevention
Intervention
Comprehensive Strategy Mantra
Researchbased
Outcomefocused
Datadriven
Juvenile Offender Court Careers
Chronic
Serious
15%
34%
C,S & V
Violent
4%
64%
Non-Serious
Non-Violent
Non-Chronic
8%
Source: Snyder (1998) Maricopa Co. Study (N=151,209)
Pathways to Boys’ Chronic, Serious, Violent Delinquency
Age of Onset
% Boys
Late
Few
Violence
(rape,
attack,
strongarm)
Moderate to
Serious
Delinquency
(fraud, burglary,
serious theft)
Physical
Fighting
Property
Damage
(physical fighting,
gang fighting)
(vandalism,
firesetting)
Minor
Aggression
(bullying,
annoying
others)
Overt
Pathway
Authority
Avoidance
Minor Covert
Behavior
(shoplifting,
frequent lying)
(truancy, running
away, staying out late)
Covert
Pathway
Defiance/Disobedience
Early
Stubborn Behavior
Authority Conflict Pathway
(Before Age 12)
Many
Risk Factors for Delinquency
Developed by the Jordan Institute for
Families
Risk factors, indicators, & data are
accessible online:
http://www.unc.edu/ncjcp/
Individual Risk Factors
Birth–6 7–11 12–16
•
•
•
•
Constitutional Factors
Behavior problems in school
Academic failure
Early conduct problems
• Gang membership













Family Risk Factors
Birth–6 7–11 12–16
•
•
•
•
Prenatal factors

Family management problems 
Parent problems

Family conflict & disruption






Peer Group Risk Factors
Birth–6 7–11 12–16
• Peer rejection
• Peer delinquent behavior





School-level Risk Factors
Birth–6 7–11 12–16
• School & classroom size

• Disruptive school environment



Community Risk Factors
Birth–6 7–11 12–16
•
•
•
•
Impoverished neighborhood 
Community drug & alcohol use
Community crime & violence
Presence of gangs
• Availability of guns








Percent of All Serious Violent Offenses
Committed by Gang Members
Sample
Offenses
Rochester
31%
82%
Sample
Offenses
14%
Denver
79%
Sample
Offenses
15%
Source: Thornberry, 1998
Seattle
85%
(Robberies Only)
8th Graders’ Position
in the Gang
5
4
3
2
1
12%
17%
28%
23%
20%
Source: Lynskey et al. (2000); NB: Ever or current members of a delinquent gang
A Graduated Sanctions Model
Residential Placement
Increasing Sanctions
Decreasing Sanctions
CB Resid.
Intensive PS
Probation
Youth Court
Diversion
Intensive
PS
Day/Eve
Report.
Probation
Group Counseling
Mentoring
Structured Decision Making Tools
Detention screening instruments
Intake screening instruments
Research-based risk risk assessments
Objective assessments of youth and
family strengths and needs
 A placement matrix for
recommending court dispositions
 Standardized case plans
 Routine assessment of case plan
progress




Key DJJDP SDM Tools
• DJJDP has a validated risk assessment
instrument
• DJJDP has a needs/strengths
assessment instrument
• The JJ Reform Act provided a
Disposition Matrix
• The Disposition Matrix and risk
assessment instrument are functioning
well in guiding offender placements
Disposition Matrix
• A disposition matrix organizes sanctions and
programs by risk level and offense severity.
• It places offenders along a continuum of
programs and sanctions
• Research shows that a reliable risk
assessment instrument predicts different
recidivism rates at various risk levels.
Key Points of the Disposition
Matrix
• Low risk offenders are placed in community
programs with minimal supervision
• Medium risk offenders are typically placed in
more structured community programs with
intensive probation supervision
• High risk offenders may be placed in Youth
Development Centers
North Carolina Offender Disposition Matrix
Risk Level
Offense
Low
Medium
High
Violent
Level 2 or 3
Level 3
Level 3
Serious
Level 1 or 2
Level 2
Level 2 or 3
Minor
Level 1
Level 1 or 2
Level 2
Level 1 Community
Level 2
Intermediate
Level 3
Commitment to Youth Development Center
Disposition of NC Court Referrals by Risk Level
Dispositional Levels
Risk Level by Disposition
Low
Medium
High
Total
%
%
%
%
Level 1 – Community
65%
31%
3%
100%
Level 2 – Intermediate
27%
47%
26%
100%
Level 3 – Commitment
7%
23%
70%
100%
Protective Supervision
47%
49%
4%
100%
Total
49%
38%
14%
100%
Recidivism by Risk Level in North Carolina (percent
with new court complaints)
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Low
Medium
High
Admissions to the North Carolina Youth
Development Centers, 1998-2002
1,600
1,360
1,400
1,217
1,200
Number of Admissions
975
1,000
800
659
536
600
400
200
0
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
NC Youth Development Center Admissions
(1998-2002)
100%
47
78
90%
239
469
438
80%
70%
60%
343
434
50%
560
40%
712
619
30%
20%
10%
122
112
95
110
108
0%
1
2
3
Violent
Serious
4
Minor Offenses
5
A Practical Approach To
Evaluating and Improving
Juvenile Justice Programs
Utilizing The Standardized
Program Evaluation Protocol
The Lipsey-Howell Project
Participating Organizations
• Department of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention
• Vanderbilt Institute for Public Policy
• This project is funded by the Governor’s
Crime Commission & DJJDP.
Project Team
•
•
•
•
•
Dr. Mark Lipsey (Vanderbilt Univ.)
Dr. James “Buddy” Howell (NC)
Dr. Simon Tidd (Vanderbilt Univ.)
Mr. Ron Mangum, M.A. (NC)
Dr. James “Jim” Palmer (NC)
DJJDP
• Ms. Susan Whitten, State Administrator,
Intervention & Prevention Division
Pilot Counties
Robeson
Rockingham
Yancey
Pitt
Buncombe
Guilford
Nash
Vance
DJJDP & JCPC Evaluation
Requirements in 1998
Juvenile Justice Reform Act
DJJDP & JCPCs have responsibility
for evaluating JCPC-funded programs
DJJDP has responsibility for identifying
“best practices”
North Carolina’s Practical
Approach to Improving
Juvenile Justice System
Programs
• Most juvenile justice programs reduce
recidivism--at least slightly.
• The most practical and cost-effective
approach is to improve existing programs.
• This can be done by applying researchbased knowledge of the features of
effective programs.
Standardized Program
Evaluation Protocol
Development: The Evidence
Base
Dr. Mark W. Lipsey
Vanderbilt University
1589 Observed Effects from 556 Outcome Studies
Four Main Characteristics Of
Effective Programs
1. The Program Type (primary intervention)
2. Supplementary Services
3. Amount of Service
4. Characteristics of Clients
Comparison of Programs with Varying
Numbers of Favorable Characteristics
Proportion of practical programs with different numbers of favorable characteristics
and associated change in recidivism rates relative to control group
Number of Favorable
Characteristics
Distribution of
Programs
Percentage of Change
in Recidivism
0
7%
+12%
1
50%
-2 %
2
27%
-10%
3
15%
-20%
4
2%
-24%
The Standardized Program
Evaluation Protocol
(SPEP)
What is it?
A practical method for evaluating juvenile justice
and delinquency prevention programs against best
practices
The SPEP provides a scheme (protocol) for
assigning points to programs according to how
closely their characteristics match those associated
with the best outcomes in research.
The SPEP cont’d
How was the SPEP developed?
Dr. Lipsey maintains and analyzes the only database of
more than 600 evaluated juvenile justice programs.
The SPEP contains the main features of effective
evaluated programs that are similar to North Carolina
programs.
Point allocations are based on research results that are
“standardized” across studies, showing the added
increment of delinquency reduction each program
feature produces, on average.
What the SPEP is NOT
It is not a whole blueprint for a program.
It measures only the delinquency
reduction potential a program type has,
on average, based on prior research.
It will not provide a treatment plan for
individual clients, only a framework
within which treatment can be planned.
Primary Program Types for SPEPs
(A separate SPEP for each)
Individual counseling
Group counseling
Family counseling
Parent training/counseling
Restitution
Interpersonal skills
Tutoring/remedial education
Mentoring
Employment related
Drug/alcohol therapy/counseling
Other Services that may
Supplement Primary Programs
Behavior management
Life skills
Intensive supervision
Cognitive behavioral
Prevention Programs: Service Categories
Effective, and above average
Parent training/counseling
Interpersonal skills training
Tutoring
Effective, and about average
Group counseling
Drug/alcohol therapy/counseling
Employment-related
Effective, but below average
Individual counseling
Mentoring
Family counseling
Court Supervised Delinquency Programs:
Service Categories
Effective, and above average
Family counseling
Tutoring
Mentoring
Effective, and about average
Parent training/counseling
Interpersonal skills training
Drug/alcohol therapy/counseling
Effective, but below average
Individual counseling
Group counseling
Employment-related
Restitution
Three Sets of SPEPs for the NC
Juvenile Justice Continuum
Delinquency Prevention
Court Delinquency Supervision
Commitment Programming &
Aftercare
Expected Recidivism with Features of
Effective Prevention Programs
Comparable Juvs not in Evaluated Program
30%
Average Prevention Program in Database
27%
Effective, Above Average Program (EAP)
25%
EAP+Best Supplemental Service (BSS)
20%
EAP+BSS+Optimal Service Amount (OSA)
17%
EAP+BSS+OSA+Appropriate Clients
13%
Expected Recidivism with Features
of Effective Court Delinquency
Supervision Programs
Comparable Juveniles not in a Program
40%
Average Supervision Program in Database
34%
Effective, Above Average Program (EAP)
32%
EAP+Best Supplemental Service (BSS)
28%
EAP+BSS+Optimal Service Amount (OSA)
24%
EAP+BSS+OSA+Appropriate Clients
21%
PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT & CONTINUUM
BUILDING PROCESS
DELINQUENCY PREVENTION
Skill Enhancement
Community Day Progs.
COURT DELINQUENCY SUPERVISION
Counseling Progs.
Intensive Supervision
COMMITMENT PROGRAMING & AFTERCARE
Confinement
Commitment Progs.
Behavioral
Management
Group Counseling
Drug Health
Education
Academic
Achievement
Cognitive
Behavior
Individual
Counseling
Interpersonal
Skills
Next Steps in the
Pilot Counties
(September-October)
Program Improvement
• SPEP evaluation of individual JCPC
programs using client tracking
information
• Engage service providers in making
program improvements to conform more
closely with best practices
Next Steps cont.
(September-October)
Continuum Building
•Identify local existing program types
•Identify primary interventions within
program types
•Identify supplementary interventions
within program types
•Analysis of risk and needs assessments
(Vanderbilt)
•Engage JCPCs in continuum building
Statewide Roll-out
(October-March)
• 4 Area Meetings (June)
• SOS & Prevention/Intervention Area
Conferences (Sept.)
• Training on Overview of SPEP Applications
(Oct.-Nov.) (Details TBD)
• Train DJJDP’s Dissemination of Information
and Skills Teams (TBD)
• Program ratings (Jan.-Feb.)
• Train judges (TBD)