Using Research and Evidence-Based
Services to Reduce the Age-Crime Curve
in North Carolina
Buddy Howell
Area Consultants Retreat
Atlantic Beach Trinity Center
Nov. 30, 2012
Buddy Howell
Comprehensive Strategy Group
Kudos: North Carolina EBP Leadership
First statewide community-based alternatives (CBAs) (late
1970s)
First “wraparound” model in the U.S. (Willie M. Program)
(early 1980s)
With the 1998 Juvenile Justice Reform Act, North Carolina
became the second state to mandate evidence-based
services.
First county-level statewide Juvenile Crime Prevention
Councils; first statewide risk factor assessments (late
1990’s)
North Carolina EBP leadership continued
First statewide evaluation of juvenile delinquency programs
(2006-2007)
First book published on statewide school violence prevention
initiatives (2009)
First statewide implementation of the Comprehensive Gang
Model (2009)
First network of therapeutic Model of Care treatment
statewide in YDCs and multipurpose homes (2010)
First statewide risk-need assessment of gang members and
program recommendations (2011)
First statewide risk-need data-driven EBP Level II community
programs (2012)
More NC EBP Kudos
First state to fully adopt the OJJDP Comprehensive
Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile
Offenders
Most effective statewide use of risk and need assessments
of juvenile offenders in conjunction with a disposition
matrix to reduce confinement (early 2000s)
The 1998 Juvenile Justice Reform Act required a statewide
evaluation of programs funded through the Juvenile
Crime Prevention Councils
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP)
was developed specifically for this purpose. It was rolled
out in 2006.
Six other states have followed North
Carolina’s lead
Arizona
 Florida
 Connecticut
 Pennsylvania
 Delaware
 Iowa
 Milwaukee (not a state; but it’s almost as
large as Delaware!)

Present goal: Reduce the age-crime curve in NC
Source: Loeber & Farrington, 2012
Developmental pathways to serious and violent behavior
AGE OF ONSET:
LATE
%BOYS/GIRLS:
FEW
VIOLENCE SERIOUS
(rape, attack,
strong-arm,
homicide)
PHYSICAL FIGHTING
(physical fighting,
gang fighting)
DELINQUENCY
(auto theft,
burglary)
MODERATELY
SERIOUS
DELINQUENCY
(fraud, pick-pocketing)
AUTHORITY
AVOIDANCE
MINOR AGGRESSION
(bullying, annoying others)
OVERT PATHWAY
PROPERTY DAMAGE
(vandalism, fire-setting)
(truancy,
running away,
staying out late)
Defiance/Disobedience
MINOR COVERT BEHAVIOR
(shoplifting, frequent lying)
COVERT PATHWAY
(before age 15)
Stubborn Behavior
EARLY
AUTHORITY CONFLICT PATHWAY
© Loeber: Pittsburgh Youth Study (before age 12)
MANY
A BIG challenge on the horizon:
16-17 year olds
McNeill et al., 2012, p. 44
A small proportion of delinquents is
responsible for half of all youth crime
Source: Loeber, Slot, Laan, & Hoeve, 2008
Juvenile offender court careers in NC
Current groups soon & profile analyses
later
Serious
or Violent
Chronic
10%
28%
C&V
0.5%
2%
Non-Serious
Non-Violent
60% Non-Chronic
Violent
Source: NC DJJDP Risk Assessment Data FY 01-02 to FY 02-03 (N=17,645)
The North Carolina Comprehensive Strategy
for Juvenile Offenders
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
North Carolina 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
A model integrated supervision and
service system with continuous probation
officer involvement in case management
Juvenile
Justice
Schools
Family/
Children
Services
Mental
Health
How can we get these groups to work
together in reducing delinquency and
other problem behaviors?
Source: Judge Tom Rawlings Sandersville, GA
Offender-Service Matching Process
P
R
E
V
E
N
T
I
O
N
JJ
Entry
Risk
Assessment
Level of
Supervision
Options
Needs
Assessment
Effective
Program
Options
Probation Services and
Clinical Case Management
Re-offense Rate, Incarceration Rate,
Mental Health outcomes, etc.
Achieving desired outcomes?
Yes? Done
Unsatisfactory outcomes?
Make Program and System
Improvements
Key Principle
“Nowhere is collaboration in juvenile
justice more important than in the
interactions of court counselors and
service providers.”
(Source: Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency,
2012)
Infrastructure for Service Matching







Disposition matrix
Valid risk and needs assessment instruments
Standardized service plans
Interdisciplinary case coordination protocols
Evidence-based services
SPEP scoring and program improvement
Continuum mapping tool
DJJ Building Blocks for Service Matching

Peer reviews for continuing quality improvement









Quality assurance of court services, facilities, community
programs, and program improvement plans
A graduated response and rewards tool
A detention screening guide for court counselors
Standardized service plans (automated risk/need
based); pilots; to be linked with SPEP primary service
types; interdisciplinary staffing
Service Planning Child and Family Teams; presently for
reentry, with goal throughout systems
SPEP program ratings
Provider Program Improvement Plans
Data-driven program placement levels
A real-time statewide offender database-NC ALLIES
Mapping the Existing Continuum
JCPC Planning Tool
NC ALLIES
Supports JCPC application process
 Client tracking system
 Measurable objectives by program type
 An accountability system

Systemic Issues in Matching
•
•
Program capacity must match population
Group services

Losing group size
 Missed sessions
•
•
Length of probation services not matched
to duration of treatment
Service barriers
The BIG challenge: High risk offenders
Risk Factors of Youth Committed to YDCs: 2010
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
83% had 2 or more referrals prior to the current intake
57% had prior F-I Felony or A1 Misdemeanor adjudication
36% had a history of assault without a weapon
77% have serious problems in school (suspension from school,
expulsion, dropping out)
46% have a history of substance abuse and other disorders
requiring further assessment and/or treatment
60% have parents willing but unable to supervise
38% are reported gang members or gang associates
Source: DJJDP 2010 Annual Report
Risk Level of Gang Members versus Other
Offenders in North Carolina
Source: M.Q. Howell & W. Lassiter, 2011
Important data on gang members in NC

The deeper into the juvenile justice system youth had
penetrated, the more likely they were to be ganginvolved (FY 2008-2011):

7% of all juveniles on whom delinquent complaints are filed,
 13% of juveniles adjudicated delinquent,
 21% of juveniles admitted to short-term detention, and
 38% of juveniles committed to secure residential facilities

The most elevated needs of North Carolina gang
members identified system-wide (FY 2008-2011):

Parents have marginal or inadequate parenting skills (88%)
 Marital discord or domestic violence in the home (39%)
 Needs additional mental health assessment or treatment (53%)
 Youth is generally functioning below grade level or has un-served “Exceptional
Children's” needs (25%)
Source: M.Q. Howell & W. Lassiter, 2011
Treatment needs of gang members versus
other offenders in North Carolina
Source: M.Q. Howell & W. Lassiter, 2011
Protocol for matching youth with
services
Two levels of assessment:
 Initial screen (current or immediate emotional,
psychological, and behavioral functioning)
 In-depth, professional clinical assessments of
specific problem behaviors
 Substance Abuse
 Mental Health
 Sex Offending
 Education assessment
Next Steps Toward Reducing the AgeCrime Curve in North Carolina

Implement the recalibrated SPEP
 Update
program classifications
 Make an adjustment in NC ALLIES to collect SPEPrequired data elements
 Integrate DJJs new quality of services measures



Develop a program improvement protocol
Update serious, violent, chronic offender analysis
System-wide measurement of recidivism reductions
Emerging Research


Now mapping risk factors across the life course into
early adulthood
 Key finding: Programs are likely to be more effective if
they do not restrict their focus to one risk domain or
one risk factor within a domain
Desistance Research
 Key predictors: good supervision, low parental stress,
high academic achievement, and high perceived
likelihood of getting caught.
 Risk factors that hinder desistance: high alcohol use,
active drug dealing, gang membership, gun carrying,
depressed mood, high anxiety, high violence
victimization, and high peer delinquency.
Pathways to Desistance Study
Source: Mulvey OJJDP Coordinating Council presentation, 2012
What about girls?

Girls’ conduct disorder rates are approximately half that of boys’
rates (McReynolds et al., 2008), and 28% of arrested youth are
female (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006).

Do delinquent boys and girls have the same risk and
protective factors? Both static and dynamic factors predict



recidivism in girls and boys (Van Der Put et al., 2011) but base rates
and risk factors differ by gender (Johnson, national analysis).
But the cumulative effects of risk factors may be worse for girls than
for boys; requiring multimodal services (Hipwell et al., 2002; Hipwell
& Loeber, 2006).
And girls also have higher levels of co-occurring problems than boys
(McReynolds et al., 2010).
Two examples: Girls’ rates of anxiety and affective disorders are
higher than boys, and violent girls are more likely than other groups
to have anxiety disorders (Wasserman et al., 2005).
Girls Unique Treatment Needs
Delinquent girls also appear to have more severe family problems,
especially in disadvantaged areas (Hipwell et al., 2002).
 Antisocial females are more impaired across a range of co-occurring
social, health, or educational domains than are antisocial males
(McReynolds et al., 2008).
 Although boys are more likely to report some type of assault
victimization, females are 10 times more likely to experience sexual
assault than boys (McReynolds et al., 2010).
 Half not diagnosed in JJS--For “hidden” concerns such as suicide
risk and depression, need direct youth input to identify problems.
Good news: Statewide implementation of the Voice DISC would identify
mental health treatment needs of girls and boys. “Now the focus
needs to be on how to ensure that we successfully link properly
identified youth to properly configured (evidence-based) services.”
(Dr. Gail Wasserman, www.promotementalhealth.org)

A goal within reach: Reduce the agecrime curve in North Carolina with
EBP and best practices
How will we know what services
worked best to reduce the age-crime
curve?
Performance measures
 SPEP program ratings
 An associated recidivism analysis
 Statewide recidivism analysis using a
systems approach (next slide)

Prevention Programs
Level of
Supervision
Counsel &
release
Arrest
Intervention
Programs
Recidivism
Outcomes
T%
Program A
U%
Diversion;
Informal
probation
Program B
V%
Program C
W%
Probation
Program D
X%
Program E
Y%
Program F
Z%
Incarceration
Total
Reoffense
Rate
Thank you!
Questions? Comments?
Contact Information:
Buddy Howell
Managing Partner
Comprehensive Strategy Group, LLC
Ph: 910-235-3708
E-mail: buddyhowell@nc.rr.com