A Promising Method of Reducing Juvenile Crime

 

Given the amount of bad news that is reported these days and all the negativity associated with the various problems that confront us, I am happy to report something positive for a change.  I have just completed an evaluation of a special program for handling delinquents in San Francisco.  The program, called Detention Diversion Advocacy Program (DDAP), is sponsored in part by the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice in San Francisco. The program's major goal is to reduce the number of youth in court ordered detention and provide them with culturally relevant community-based services and supervision.  Youths selected are those that are likely to be detained pending their adjudication.  DDAP provides an intensive level of community-based monitoring and advocacy that is not presently available.

Disposition case advocacy is the concept that describes the type of approach being used in this program.  This method has been defined as the efforts of lay persons or nonlegal experts acting on behalf of youthful offenders at disposition hearings.  It is based in part on the more general concept of "case management" which is a "client-level" strategy for promoting the coordination of human services, opportunities, or benefits.  Case management seeks to achieve two major outcomes: 1) the integration of services across a cluster of organizations and 2) continuity of care.  The main focus of case management is to develop a network of human services that integrates the development of client skills and the involvement of different social networks and multiple service providers.

The evaluation compared a group of youths referred to DDAP during the first two years of its operation with a randomly selected group of youths who remained within the juvenile court system. Comparisons were made based upon several socio-demographic and legal variables, such as race, gender, age, number of prior referrals, the nature of prior referrals and risk scores (these are based upon a "risk assessment" scale that juvenile courts use everywhere and the scale is supposed to predict who is and who is not potentially the most likely to get into further trouble; the scale is also used to determine who is and who is not in need of secure detention - a score of 10 or more indicates a "high risk" of being a recidivist.).

The study focused particularly on the outcome of the cases based upon several different definitions of "recidivism," such as the number of subsequent referrals to court, the nature of those referrals, the number of subsequent petitions to court and whether or not the youths received any subsequent out-of-home placements.  The follow-up period was three years.

What is especially noteworthy is that over 80% of the DDAP group had "risk scores" of more than 10, compared to only 60% of the control group. Moreover, the two groups did not differ in any significant way as far as their prior record - both were about as equally as likely to be previously referred to court on a serious offense.  However, the DDAP group was more likely to have been previously committed to some sort of "out-of-home" placement (e.g., residential treatment center).  In short, the DDAP youths were, by these measures, a more "hardcore" group of youths who were no strangers to the juvenile justice system.  The two groups did not differ significantly according to race, but the DDAP group had proportionately more males and was younger.

The results of the evaluation exceeded all expectations.  The recidivism rates (on each of the definitions of "recidivism" used) for the DDAP youths were significantly lower than for the control group; in many cases the difference was as great as 50%.  The overall recidivism rate (based upon subsequent referrals) for the DDAP group was 34% compared to a 60% rate for the control group.  Moreover, the nature of the subsequent referrals for the control group was far more serious in nature: almost 46% of the control group but only 24% of the DDAP group had serious (felonies) subsequent violations and, more significantly, whereas only 9% of the DDAP group had a subsequent referral for a violent offense, about one-fourth of the control group did (24.7%).

Given the surprising nature of these results, it was decided to control for several variables to see if the results were the same.  Again, surprisingly, no matter what controls were used, the results were the same.  Thus, for example, when controlling for age, race, gender, prior referrals and risk scores, the recidivism rates were significantly higher for the control group than for the DDAP group.  What is perhaps even more interesting is that when looking at only those with low risk scores, those with no prior referrals, those with no prior placements, those with only minor prior offenses and those younger (14 or less), the recidivism rates were consistently higher for the control group.

The implications of this study are quite significant.  What the results suggest is that you can take high risk youths who would normally spend a great deal of time within the juvenile justice system, including secure detention pending the final disposition of their case, and closely monitor them in the community and provide them with several community-based services and be successful.  But the study also suggests that taking low risk youths, minor offenders, and young offenders and generally those who would be highly unlikely to become hardened delinquents, and placing them within the formal juvenile justice system, may produce more harm and good.  In short, there are good alternatives to handling the problems of youths, short of the often demeaning and impersonal juvenile justice system. 

While the study suggests several reasons for the success of this program, one tends to stand out above all others: the physical location of DDAP seemed, to this evaluator, to be "user friendly" and lacked the usual "macho" appearance of the formal system. There are no bars, no concrete buildings, no devices for screening for weapons as you enter the building, no "cells" for "lockdown," etc. Further, the DDAP workers are not "officers of the court" with powers of arrest, and the usual accouterments of such occupations (e.g., badges, guns). The DDAP case workers appeared to be energetic, kind, compassionate and, above all else, empathetic people. 

It is strongly suggested that this kind of program be tried in other parts of the country and that research evaluating such programs continue.  Perhaps the time has come to begin to seriously challenge the existing methods of responding to the problems of youth and try new approaches like this one.  The bottom line is simple: programs like these are effective.   

While the study suggests several reasons for the success of this program, one tends to stand out above all others: the physical location of DDAP seemed, to this evaluator, to be "user friendly" and lacked the usual "macho" appearance of the formal system. There are no bars, no concrete buildings, no devices for screening for weapons as you enter the building, no "cells" for "lockdown," etc. Further, the DDAP workers are not "officers of the court" with powers of arrest, and the usual accouterments of such occupations (e.g., badges, guns). The DDAP case workers appeared to be energetic, kind, compassionate and, above all else, empathetic people.  Almost all came from the same kinds of neighborhoods as their clients and most are members of minority groups, as are their clients.