Models for Change Publications

DMC e-News: Mark Masterson of Sedgwick County, KS Named Champion for Change

01/05/2012 10:32 AM

Jan 4, 2012 | DMC Action Network | PUBLICATIONS

The November/December issue features news from the Models for Change 6th Annual Working Conference and the presentation of the Champions for Change award to Mark Masterson of Sedgewick County, KS:

"Sedgwick County Department of Corrections Director Mark Masterson is no stranger to work to reduce racial and ethnic disparities. Before joining the DMC Action Network in 2007, officials in his jurisdiction were already hard at work on improving data capacity and developing community based-alternatives to detention.

However, Mark wanted Sedgwick County to do more. As a DMC Action Network site, Sedgwick County seized the opportunities available through the Network to reduce school-based arrests and arrests for low-level offenses, create alternatives to detention for youth of color, and leverage funding to explore the needs of youth involved in both the juvenile justice and child welfare systems."

Download the PDF to read more.

Download publication (pdf, 199 KB)

Counting Latino Youth in the Illinois Juvenile Justice System

12/16/2011 11:00 AM

Dec 9, 2011 | National Council of La Raza | PUBLICATIONS

The report details the inadequacy of information on Hispanic youth, who constitute one of the fastest-growing segments of the population, and highlights this lack of data as a major barrier to developing strategies and policies that can effectively prevent young Latinos from becoming caught up in the justice system.

Download publication (pdf, 297 KB)

An Executive Summary: Rethinking Juvenile Justice

12/01/2011 01:49 PM

Dec 1, 2011 | Models for Change Research Initiative | PUBLICATIONS

Elizabeth S. Scott and Laurence Steinberg, leading figures in juvenile law and adolescentdevelopmental psychology, have brought their disciplines together to define a newapproach to juvenile crime. In their book, Rethinking Juvenile Justice (Harvard UniversityPress, 2008), they argue that advances in science, evolving public attitudes, andskyrocketing costs make this a prime moment for reform of the juvenile justice system.They outline a new developmental model that is complex, nuanced, and grounded inscientific evidence. It recognizes adolescents’ immaturity but also holds them accountablefor their actions, and it offers solutions that allow them to grow into responsible adults.In the end, the authors contend, this approach would better serve the interests of justiceand public safety, and be less wasteful of money and lives, than either the traditionalrehabilitation model or the punitive policies of the past generation.

This brief is one in a series describing new knowledge and innovations emerging from Models for Change, a multi-state juvenile justice initiative. Models for Change is accelerating movement toward a more effective, fair, and developmentally sound juvenile justice system by creating replicable models that protect community safety, use resources wisely, and improve outcomes for youths. The briefs are intended to inform professionals in juvenile justice and related fields, and to contribute to a new national wave of juvenile justice reform.

Download publication (pdf, 304 KB)

Knowledge Brief: How Can We Know If Juvenile Justice Reforms Are Worth the Cost?

12/01/2011 01:45 PM

Dec 1, 2011 | Models for Change Research Initiative | PUBLICATIONS

With governments at every level facing grim budget forecasts, policymakers need to knowas much as possible about what juvenile justice activities yield the greatest social good fora given level of spending. This is the very question benefit-cost analysis seeks to answer.This policy brief summarizes the benefit-cost analysis of a set of reforms intended tomake juvenile detention more developmentally productive: residential centers that provideyouths with group-based cognitive behavior therapy. The researchers found preliminaryevidence that this program may decrease recidivism rates in the 15 months followingrelease, and that the minimal costs of the program (a few hundred dollars per youth perdetention spell) may be outweighed by the monetized benefits of reduced crime andpunishment. Their hunch is that progress is most likely to come from the cumulative effectof relatively inexpensive changes like this one, each generating benefits in excess of costsand reducing recidivism incrementally.

Download publication (pdf, 327 KB)

Knowledge Brief: Harnessing the Capacity for Change

12/01/2011 01:42 PM

Dec 1, 2011 | Models for Change Research Initiative | PUBLICATIONS

Organizational change requires more than good ideas. Organizations must also have thecapacity and resources necessary to reach the desired goals. In this project, the researchersinterviewed and surveyed organizations involved in Models for Change to assess theircapacity to implement and sustain change. They sought to understand what resourcescontribute to having capacity, how capacity is used, and the ways in which differentdimensions of capacity work together. From the study they identified five major dimensionsof capacity—finances, human resources, technology, stakeholder commitment, andcollaboration—and developed a model of how these dimensions interact, build on oneanother, and ultimately contribute to change. The more concrete capacities such as finances,human resources, and technology, the researchers found, can predict an organization’s abilityto collaborate with others to effect change.

Download publication (pdf, 379 KB)

Knowledge Brief: How Well Is the Child Welfare System Serving Youths with Behavioral Problems?

12/01/2011 01:38 PM

Dec 1, 2011 | Models for Change Research Initiative | PUBLICATIONS

Child welfare systems were designed with a focus on ensuring the safety and stability of abused and neglected children. Today, though, these systems also serve as an alternative to secure confinement for juvenile offenders, who generally require behavioral health and rehabilitation services. The researchers view this as a potential mismatch between individual youth needs and professional capacity, and in this study they looked at the effects of the mismatch. They found that youths with behavioral problems experience more changes in placement and are placed in more restrictive settings, such as group homes and residential centers, rather than with foster families. They also found that youths placed entirely or in part because of behavior problems are at greater risk of subsequent arrest when compared with youths placed only for abuse or neglect. Since child welfare is often the only resource available to vulnerable families struggling with behavioral issues, they suggest improving the collaboration between child welfare and juvenile justice systems.

Download publication (pdf, 447 KB)

Knowledge Brief: Is There a Link between Child Welfare and Disproportionate Minority Contact in Juvenile Justice?

12/01/2011 01:33 PM

Dec 1, 2011 | Models for Change Research Initiative | PUBLICATIONS

African-American children are represented in foster care and other child welfare placements at a rate more than twice their representation in the U.S. child population. Like others in the child welfare system they tend to be victims of physical abuse and neglect—the very children who are at increased risk of juvenile delinquency. What implications does this have for disproportionate minority contact (DMC) in juvenile justice? This study looked at whether the population of youth moving between child welfare and juvenile justice contributes to DMC in juvenile justice. The researchers also looked at whether a child’s status as a “foster care youth” influences judicial dispositions, thereby increasing the over representation of African Americans at deeper ends of the juvenile justice system. The findings suggest that the child welfare system is a significant pathway for African-American youths involved with the juvenile justice system.

Download publication (pdf, 495 KB)

Knowledge Brief: Does Mental Health Screening Fulfill Its Promise?

12/01/2011 01:30 PM

Dec 1, 2011 | Models for Change Research Initiative | PUBLICATIONS

As many as two-thirds of youths in pre-trial detention exhibit behaviors serious enough to qualify them for a mental disorder. Under the stress of detention, these youths can act out in ways that are harmful to themselves, to other youths around them, and to detention center staff. In this study, researchers implemented a validated screening procedure (MAYSI-2) that allows staff to identify a youth who is in crisis and may need immediate attention. But would staff in fact use the tool to get youths the help they need? Findings indicate that inmost centers staff did increase their efforts to obtain services and to take suicide precautions where needed. In addition, when services were not available, the ability to identify youths was sometimes helpful in finding or creating the needed services. Screening did not reduce the number of disruptive incidents; that may require additional training.

Download publication (pdf, 308 KB)

Knowledge Brief: Mental Health Services in Juvenile Justice: Who pays? What gets paid for? And who gets to decide?

12/01/2011 01:24 PM

Dec 1, 2011 | Models for Change Research Initiative | PUBLICATIONS

Providing effective mental health services for youths in the juvenile justice system raisescomplex policy questions, including: Who pays? What services get paid for? And who getsto decide? The answers to these questions are changing rapidly, as financing shifts fromspecialized programs to broad-based insurance such as Medicaid. This brief provides anoverview of the changing financing streams and federal health care reform, and exploresthe opportunities and challenges facing mental health and social service providers, juvenilejustice practitioners, and others who want to have a seat at the policy table.

Download publication (pdf, 512 KB)

Knowledge Brief: Are Minority Youths Treated Differently in Juvenile Probation?

12/01/2011 01:21 PM

Dec 1, 2011 | Models for Change Research Initiative | PUBLICATIONS

While many studies have examined disproportionate minority contact at the front endof the juvenile justice system, few have examined disparities deep within the system—in particular, differences in how minority youths are treated while on probation. Thisstudy examined juvenile probation at three sites with different mixes of white, Hispanic,and black youths. The researchers explored whether judges set different conditions ofprobation and ordered different services for youths of different racial or ethnic groups,and whether probation officers treated youths differently according to their race orethnicity. They found varying answers, with no systematic pattern of discrimination.One possible explanation is the constraints, both real and perceived, on the responsesof probation officers, who may feel their only option in many situations is detention.The findings also underline the importance of collecting data throughout the system,to try to understand the reasons for the differences across different sites.

Download publication (pdf, 378 KB)

Knowledge Brief: Can Risk Assessment Improve Juvenile Justice Practices?

12/01/2011 01:18 PM

Dec 1, 2011 | Models for Change Research Initiative | PUBLICATIONS

A growing number of juvenile justice experts are suggesting a new, potentially more effective approach to reducing recidivism: first identify a youth’s risk of re-offending; then match services to his or her specific risk factors and responsiveness to specific types of interventions. This study examined the implementation of risk/needs assessment tools in six juvenile probation offices in two states, and what effects it had on the practices of the probation officers. The researchers found that probations officers using these tools did take risk factors into account in their recommendations for individual youths, leading them to seek the least restrictive but still appropriate disposition for each youth. In most of the sites, this led to lower levels of supervision for low-risk youths and more intensive services for high-risk youths. Thus far, the decreased use of resources has not resulted in increased re-offending.

Download publication (pdf, 291 KB)

Innovation Brief: Raising the Standards of Juvenile Indigent Defense

12/01/2011 12:48 PM

Dec 1, 2011 | Juvenile Law Center | PUBLICATIONS

Pennsylvania’s county-based approach to juvenile defense created a patchwork system in which children in some counties received excellent representation while those in other locations did not, often resulting in inappropriate dispositions and harmful outcomes. The Juvenile Defenders Association of Pennsylvania was established to promote improvements in indigent juvenile defense, and made several important innovations. The organization developed a set of recommendations for reform (some of which have been adopted as new Rules of Juvenile Court Procedure and recommended legislation), produced guidelines and a training manual for juvenile defense attorneys, expanded training programs to reach defenders across the state, created a model expungement protocol, and is helping to develop model juvenile defense units in diverse counties.

Download publication (pdf, 539 KB)

Innovation Brief: Using Diversion Fairly, Consistently, and Effectively

12/01/2011 12:09 PM

Dec 1, 2011 | Juvenile Law Center | PUBLICATIONS

Juvenile justice leaders in Pennsylvania wanted to create a model system to channel youths away from formal processing. The idea was to hold young offenders accountable withless costly and more effective programs, while avoiding the negative consequences of adelinquency adjudication or conviction and a court record. The group began with a focus on youths with mental and behavioral health problems, but soon expanded to include a much broader population. By involving a diverse array of stakeholders and working collaboratively to gain consensus, the group was able to draw up a set of diversion principles, write a statewide guide, and fund pilot projects to divert youths at critical justice system points. Building on this momentum, thirteen additional projects were launched in 2011. Diversion programs are now part of the fabric of juvenile justice reform in the state.

This brief is one in a series describing new knowledge and innovations emerging from Models for Change, a multi-state juvenile justice initiative. Models for Change is accelerating movement toward a more effective, fair, and developmentally sound juvenile justice system by creating replicable models that protect community safety, use resources wisely, and improve outcomes for youths. The briefs are intended to inform professionals in juvenile justice and related fields, and to contribute to a new national wave of juvenile justice reform.

Download publication (pdf, 524 KB)

Assessment of Access to Counsel and Quality of Representation in Delinquency Proceedings in Pennsylvania

12/01/2011 11:21 AM

Oct 1, 2003 | Juvenile Law Center and American Bar Association Juvenile Justice Center | PUBLICATIONS

This report is an assessment of children’s access to counsel and the quality of representation they receive in Pennsylvania’s juvenile justice system. The report's findings are based on an 18-month assessment, including responses to a 70-question written survey and site visits to juvenile courts across the state. Pennsylvania practices were measured against those required by the IJA/ABA Juvenile Justice Standards. With overwhelming caseloads, little access to investigators and limited time for preparation, Pennsylvania juvenile public defenders are failing the poor children they are expected to defend. According to this report, the quality and effectiveness of legal representation for indigent youth in the Pennsylvania juvenile justice system varies dramatically from county to county. The report’s conclusion: youth are better or worse off, depending on where they live.

This report can also be found at: http://jlc.org/publications/pennsylvania_counsel/

Download publication (pdf, 846 KB)

Guide to Developing Pre-Adjudication Diversion Policy and Practice in Pennsylvania

12/01/2011 10:55 AM

Sep 1, 2010 | Diversion Subcommittee of the Mental Health/Juvenile Justice state work group of the Models for Change Initiative in Pennsylvania | PUBLICATIONS

In 2006, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania issued a Mental Health/Juvenile Justice Joint Policy Statement (the “Joint Policy Statement”)1 as a blueprint for creating a model system that responds appropriately to youth with mental health needs who may or do become involved in the juvenile court. The Joint Policy Statement, promulgated as part of Pennsylvania’s participation in the Models for Change systems reform initiative, sets out a vision of a comprehensive model system that: (1) prevents the unnecessary involvement of youth who are in need of mental health treatment, including those with co-occurring substance abuse disorders, in the juvenile justice system; (2) allows for the early identification of youth in the system with mental health needs and co-occurring disorders; and (3) provides for timely access by identified youth in the system to appropriate treatment within the least restrictive setting that is consistent with public safety needs.

A key component of the Joint Policy Statement’s vision of a model system is pre-adjudication diversion2 – providing opportunities for youth who would otherwise face formal processing in the court system to avoid an adjudication of delinquency or conviction for a summary offense and instead directing them into an alternative program, including treatment when appropriate. The Diversion Subcommittee of the state Mental Health/Juvenile Justice work group for the Models for Change initiative in Pennsylvania was formed with the mandate of implementing the Joint Policy Statement’s vision with respect to diversion. The Diversion Subcommittee developed a set of fundamental principles or values that should underpin any pre-adjudication diversion policy and protocol developed in Pennsylvania, whether at the state or county level. The Principles have been endorsed by many key stakeholders in the Commonwealth. (See Principles of Pre-Adjudication Diversion in Pennsylvania, Appendix A.) The Diversion Subcommittee also developed this "Guide to Developing Pre-Adjudication Diversion Policy and Practice" to assist counties in crafting county-specific pre-adjudication diversion policies and protocols to guide local practice.

The Principles and Guide were developed in direct response to two key findings of a survey conducted in 2007 of county juvenile justice stakeholders, including judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys and juvenile probation officers. First, although Pennsylvania’s Juvenile Act provides a statutory basis for diversion, most Pennsylvania counties currently do not have a formal written policy on diversion. Second, there is a need for statewide standards regarding diversion in order to ensure that diversion is made available to all eligible youth throughout the Commonwealth and is fairly administered. The Principles and Guide are provided as resources to assist counties in developing local policies and protocols that are consistent with the mandates of current law and best practice standards.

Diversion is both a process (i.e., providing alternatives to adjudications for alleged juvenile offenders) and a program (i.e., the services the youth receives in place of a formal adjudication). This Guide addresses both aspects of diversion, and stakeholders similarly should address both aspects as they craft their own diversion policies and protocols.

This document can also be found at: http://www.jlc.org/publications/guide_to_developing_pre-adjudication_diversion_policy_and_practice/

Download publication (pdf, 652 KB)

Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice Report on Luzerne County

12/01/2011 10:08 AM

May 1, 2010 | Pennsylvania Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice | PUBLICATIONS

The Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice was created in 2009 by an act of the General Assembly with the support of the Governor and the Supreme Court. Its purpose was to investigate circumstances that led to corruption in the juvenile court of Luzerne County resulting in federal criminal charges against two judges; to restore public confidence in the administration of justice, and to prevent similar events from occurring there or elsewhere in the Commonwealth.

This report can also be found at: http://www.pacourts.us/Links/Public/InterbranchCommissionJuvenileJustice.htm

Download publication (pdf, 829 KB)

Performance Guidelines for Quality and Effective Juvenile Delinquency Representation

12/01/2011 09:53 AM

Apr 1, 2010 | Juvenile Indigent Defense Action Network | PUBLICATIONS

Section 1: The Representation of Children in Delinquency Court is a Specialized andComplicated Practice Area

Section 2: Support for Well-Resourced, Specialized Juvenile Delinquency Representationby Public Defender Offices and by Contract and Assigned Counsel is Critical for anEffective Juvenile Justice System

Section 3: Performance Guidelines Establish Best Practices and Define Accountability forQuality and Client-Centered Juvenile Defense Advocacy

Download publication (pdf, 437 KB)

Doorways to Delinquency: Multi-System Involvement of Delinquent Youth in King County (Seattle, WA)

11/18/2011 01:27 PM

Sep 23, 2011 | Gregory Halemba and Gene Siegel | PUBLICATIONS

This report highlights findings from a study conducted by NCJJ that examines the prevalence of multi-system involvement among youth referred to the King County Juvenile Court on delinquency matters in 2006. The study found that about two-thirds of all youth referred on a delinquency matter had some form of child welfare involvement and that such involvement is correlated to poorer juvenile justice outcomes including time spent in detention and recidivism. These outcomes, particularly for youth of color and females, worsened among youth who had more extensive child welfare system involvement. This report highlights findings from a study conducted by NCJJ that examines the prevalence of multi-system involvement among youth referred to the King County Juvenile Court on delinquency matters in 2006. The study found that about two-thirds of all youth referred on a delinquency matter had some form of child welfare involvement and that such involvement is correlated to poorer juvenile justice outcomes including time spent in detention and recidivism. These outcomes, particularly for youth of color and females, worsened among youth who had more extensive child welfare system involvement.

Download publication (pdf, 354 KB)

The Pennsylvania Juvenile Defense Notebook

11/14/2011 06:34 PM

Oct 3, 2011 | PA JIDAN Team | PUBLICATIONS

The Pennsylvania Juvenile Defense Notebook is a comprehensive training tool for both new and experienced attorneys who defend children accused of delinquent offenses. The Notebook includes caselaw, strategy tips, motions, forms and other resources. To access the entire Notebook, please visit the Members Only section of the National Juvenile Defender Center website and request a log-in.

For questions regarding the Notebook, please contact Michael Moore at mmoore@philadefender.org.

Download publication (pdf, 478 KB)

Disproportionate Minority Contact Action Network eNews-September/October

10/21/2011 01:05 PM

Oct 21, 2011 | DMC Action Network | PUBLICATIONS

This month's issue includes articles featuring:

Farewell and Thank You to Lisa Garry, A Visionary Advocate for Change
Connecticut Replicates DMC Action Network Strategies at the State and Local Level
The Future of Federal Juvenile Justice Funding
The Newest DMC and Juvenile Justice Resources

Download publication (pdf, 162 KB)

Juvenile Diversion Guidebook

10/19/2011 04:40 PM

Mar 1, 2011 | Models for Change Juvenile Diversion Workgroup | PUBLICATIONS

Programs that divert youth from involvement in the juvenile justice system have become more frequent in response to the growing recognition that such involvement often is not necessary to achieve society’s goals. The concept of diversion was first adopted by the adult criminal justice system, and in the 1960s, became a topic of discussion in the juvenile justice system. In 1967, the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice recommended exploring alternatives for addressing the needs of troubled youth outside of the justice system. In 1976, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s Special Emphasis Branch provided $10 million in funding for the development of diversion programs. These efforts were driven by the belief that diversion programs might yield many benefits, such as: 1) decreased rates of recidivism; 2) less crowded detention facilities; 3) allowing youth the option to choose an alternative to processing; 4) providing more appropriate treatments at the community level; 5) reducing the stigma associated with formal juvenile justice system involvement; and 6) increasing family participation.

While diversion has been discussed and practiced for nearly four decades, there is little consistency in terms of what actually constitutes a diversion program or process. However, there is a common goal among diversion programs—to minimize a youth’s involvement in the juvenile justice system—but the means and processes to achieve this goal differ in a number of ways, including:

The segment of the youth population the program targets;
Who makes the decision as to which youth can or cannot be diverted;
The processing point in the system at which youth are diverted;
How charges against the youth are handled;
Consequences the youth faces for unsuccessful program completion;
Benefits the youth receives for successful program completion; and
What community-based services are provided, if any

Likewise, some jurisdictions have diversion programs that are governed by more formal rules and better defined service outcomes than others. Therefore, while diversion continues to emerge as an important practice in the juvenile justice field, these inconsistencies in what constitutes “diversion” call for clarification. This Guidebook was created to offer juvenile justice practitioners a roadmap for addressing these inconsistencies.

It is important for readers to recognize that this Guidebook does not consider all types of diversion programs in juvenile justice. Specifically, it does not consider:

Diversion efforts after formal adjudication or in juvenile corrections
Diversion from pre-trial detention

The focus of this document is on diversion programs designed to reduce the likelihood that youth will encounter formal processing prior to formal adjudication. Thus, detention diversion was excluded because it is different from other pretrial diversion situations that prevent youth from formal processing or adjudication. Diversion from detention only diverts youth from being placed in secure custody while still being formally processed. Therefore, diversion programs considered here range from the point of police contact, to pre- and post-petition, and up to the time just prior to formal adjudication.

Download publication (pdf, 813 KB)

2011 Champions for Change Award: Call for Nominations

09/27/2011 01:24 PM

Sep 27, 2011 | Coalition for Juvenile Justice | PUBLICATIONS

Please consider nominating one of your colleagues for the 2011 Champions for Change Awards. Download the call for nominations document for more information on selection criteria and nomination instructions.

Deadline for submitting nominations is October 7, 2011.

If you have any questions, please contact Idit Knaan at the Coalition for Juvenile Justice: knaan@juvjustice.org or 202-467-0864, ext. 110.

Download publication (pdf, 225 KB)

Disproportionate Minority Contact Action Network eNews-August

08/26/2011 01:14 PM

Aug 26, 2011 | DMC Action Network | PUBLICATIONS

This month's issue focuses on "Having Faith: Partnering with Religious Organizations to Help Combat DMC."

In October 2010, we described how Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, hit the ground running with its DMC reduction work, implementing a detention risk assessment instrument and opening the County’s first evening reporting center in just one year’s time. This month, we highlight how Lancaster’s DMC Workgroup forged new partnerships with its faith-based community to better serve youth and families.

Download publication (pdf, 201 KB)

NJJN Policy Platform - Safe and Effective School Disciplinary Policies and Practices

08/17/2011 11:54 AM

Aug 1, 2011 | National Juvenile Justice Network | PUBLICATIONS

NJJN's latest policy platform includes recommendations on safe and effective school disciplinary policies and practices. The recommendations focus on:

Law enforcement and discipline policies
Suspensions and expulsions
Student rights and family engagement
Students with disabilities
Data and racial and ethnic disparities (Disproportionate Minority Contact

Click here to see all NJJN policy platforms.

Download publication (pdf, 91 KB)

Bringing Youth Home: A National Movement to Increase Public Safety, Rehabilitate Youth and Save Money

08/17/2011 11:42 AM

Jul 1, 2011 | National Juvenile Justice Network | PUBLICATIONS

At least twenty-four states will save tens of millions of dollars in the coming fiscal year—and significantly increase public safety—through a smart and simple restructuring of their juvenile justice systems. According to a recent report published by the National Juvenile Justice Network, states that reduce the number of youth held in secure facilities save millions of dollars and experience a reduction in juvenile arrests and recidivism, while also treating youth more appropriately and effectively.

"Bringing Youth Home: A National Movement to Increase Public Safety, Rehabilitate Youth and Save Money," highlights positive news stemming from and of interest to budget conscious and public safety-minded states. The publication includes examples of states that reduced their juvenile facility populations and are now not only reaping the rewards of newfound funds that can be directed into more effective community-based services for youth, but are also seeing a better return on their investment in terms of juvenile rehabilitation and public safety. These positive changes are the result of many factors. Some closures were mandated by legislatures, while others are the result of reform-minded administrators who acknowledge more appropriate and effective ways to respond to court-involved youth. Other closures resulted from lawsuits that exposed horrific conditions in facilities and regular abuse. The publication also includes specific tips on how to downsize wisely, and maximize the benefits of facility closures.

Download publication (pdf, 1823 KB)