Juvenile justice evaluation final report draft submiittal / November 19, 1998 Volume 1 |
Previous | 1 of 2 | Next |
|
This page
All
|
Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Submitted To Arizona Juvenile Justice Committee
DRAFT Submittal
November 19,1998 Volume 1
Deloitte &ToucheConsulting Group
Deloitte & Touche Consulting Group LLC Suite 200 2335 American River Drive Sacramento, California 95825-7065 Telephone: (916)565-3100
November 20,1998
Arizona State Legislature Juvenile Justice Committee 1700 W. Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Dear Co-Chairmen and Committee Members: We are pleased to present the draft copy of the Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Report for your review. This draft report presents our findings y d recommendations as they relate to the major agencies involved in the juvenile justice system as well as the system as a whole. The draft report is ordered as follows: Volume 1
Executive Summary Introduction Section 1 Section 2 Methodology Section 3 Juvenile Justice System Structure and Stakeholders Section 4 Prevention Section 5 Intentention Section 6 Secure Care Section 7 Post-Secure Care Section 8 Core Findings and Recommendations
Volume 2
Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Providers Visited Site Visit Summaries Recidivism Analysis Summaries
As this is a draft report, we would like to actively solicit your input on this draft and incorporate your feedback in the final report. Members of our project team will be calling committee members on Tuesday, November 24' to answer questions and solicit your feedback. The final report will be presented to the Committee on Monday, November 3oth. Thank you for the opportunity to serve you on this important project. If you have any questions regarding the draft report, please call Bobbie Wilbur at (916) 565-3147 or Sean Fox at (916) 565-3128. Sincerely, Deloitte Consulting
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
DRAFT
Table af Contents
Volume 1
Executive Summary Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4 Section 5 Section 6 Section 7 Section 8
Page
e5-1
Introduction Methodology Juvenile Justice System Structure and Stakeholders Prevention Inten/ention Secure Care Post-Secure Care Core Findings and Recommendations
8-1 4-1
- --
Volume 2
Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C
Page
Providers Visited Site Visit Summaries Recidivism Analysis Summaries
C-I
Table of Contents
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
DRAFT
Executive Summary
This report includes the findings and recommendations developed during the evaluation of the Arizona juvenile justice system. The review encompassed the following two areas: The performance of all agencies and the programs administered by those agencies that meet the statutory requirements for the scope of the study, with a particular emphasis on outcomes ,and The cost effectiveness of the services of all agencies that meet the statutory requirements for the scope of this study. This Executive Summary provides a brief overview of the methodology we employed, an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses in the management and organizational structures of the Arizona juvenile justice system, and associated recommendations for improving the management of the delivery of juvenile justice services in Arizona.
We believe the methodology employed on this review offers Arizona an efficient and effective approach to identifying the outcomes and cost effectiveness of its juvenile justice programs. At the start of the project we put forth a set of desired conditions that we have developed from our extensive experience in reviewing and analyzing juvenile justice systems. These desired conditions relate to organizational structure, management and administrative practices, systems of care and community integration. Using the desired conditions, tailored to Arizona, as our benchmark, we conducted our assessment of the Arizona juvenile justice system with: A review of relevant Arizona legislation; Individual interviews with key Arizona judicial, legislative and executive branch leaders; Individual interviews with key stakeholders within the juvenile justice system; Individual interviews with service providers; Case file reviews; Site visits to:
All ADJC Institutions, Three ADJC Parole offices, All county Probation Departments, Other county officials, and Thirty-nine service providers;
Executive Summary
Page ES 1
-
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
DRAFT
Focus groups involving representatives of the key leaders and stakeholders in the Arizona juvenile justice system; and Completion and presentation of the final report.
An Overview of Arizona's Juvenile Justice System
Many entities have a role in influencing and serving children and youth that have been adjudicated as delinquent or diverted from delinquency and prosecution in Arizona. A simplified representation of the service continuum, Exhibit ES-1 identifies the key stakeholders.
Exhibit ES-I
There are really two stakeholders that have responsibility for (or "own") a juvenile regardless of whether the juvenile is, or is not, in the juvenile justice continuum. These two stakeholders are the juvenile's:
Family, and Community.
Programs and services for youth involved in the juvenile justice system are provided and monitored primarily through the Administrative Offices of the Court, Juvenile Justice Services Division (AOCIJJSD); Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections (ADJC); the fifteen County Superior Court Juvenile Probation Departments. The other major stakeholders in the system are law enforcement agencies, County Attorneys, Juvenile Court Judges, treatment providers, the Arizona Department of Education, the Arizona Department of Economic Security (ADES), and the Arizona Department of Health Services, Behavioral Health Services (ADHSBHS). The major agencies in the system all operate on different computer systems and uniquely identify the youth or family. As a result, significant effort is required to try to match
Executive Summary
Page ES - 2
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
DRAFT
youth fiom the juvenile justice system to ADE, ADES or ADHSIBHS. The bottom line is, the state of Arizona has no efficient or effective way to track juveniles across state systems. It is important to note that only 7.5 % of the total juvenile population in Arizona received a referral to Juvenile Court during fiscal year 1997. Of those referred, 29% were brought into the system, warned and released; and another 34% were diverted fiom prosecution through programs such as Teen Court and unpaid community work. In other words, 63% of the juveniles entering the system were not prosecuted for a crime by the County Attorneys. Of the remaining juveniles who were charged with a crime, 40% were dismissed or given a penalty. The remaining youth, approximately 12,800 (less than 2% of the total Arizona juvenile population), were on Standard or Intensive Probation or in Secure Care, and are the focus of most of the attention and resources of the juvenile justice system. AOCIJJSD provides administrative support and oversight for the county juvenile justice systems in the following major programs:
Diversion, Standard Probation, Intensive Probation, and Treatment Services.
AOCIJJSD coordinates policy, service contracts and payments for private agencies providing services authorized by the Juvenile Courts. It is also responsible for management of the state appropriations allocated to fund these treatment and probation efforts. AOCIJJSD total expenditures for the year ending June 30, 1997 were approximately $43 million funded fiom state appropriations. These funds were used to serve over 50 thousand children and youth in the juvenile justice system, at an approximate per youth cost of $856. ADJC is responsible for the state Secure Care facilities including:
Adobe Mountain, Black Mountain, Catalina Mountain, Encanto, Rincon Temporary Diagnostic Unit, and Boot Camp.
ADJC is also responsible for Post-Secure Care, including Conditional Liberty and related programs and services, designed to insure appropriate transition back into the community. ADJC directly provides the majority of services with its own programs and employees, however, it contracts with private providers to administer some Treatment programs.
Executive Summary
Page ES 3
-
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
DRAFT ADJC total expenditures for the year ending June 30, 1997 were approximately $53 million, funded mostly from state appropriations. At any point in time, ADJC supervises approximately 1,000 youth in Secure Care at an average annual cost of $26,500 per juvenile. ADJC supervises approximately 1,400 youth in Post-Secure Care at an average annual cost of approximately $10,200. These costs exclude administrative overhead , which represents 9% of total expenditures. In Arizona, County Probation Departments operate under the authority of the Presiding Judge of the Juvenile Court of each county and is a Division of the Arizona Superior Court. Each Presiding Judge has the authority to appoint the Chief Juvenile Probation Officer, who supervises the County Probation Department. County Superior Court Juvenile Probation Departments (County Probation Departments) provide the following services to youth that come into the juvenile system:
Diversion, Court, Treatment, Short-term detention, and Probation services.
The County Attorney's Offices, Judges and Juvenile Probation Departments in each county is responsible for all facets of the juvenile justice system directly affecting youth prior to commitment to a state juvenile correction institution. Overall, the County Probation Departments expend approximately $23 million, or roughly27% of statewide juvenile justice costs. Expenditure levels, funding sources and approximate cost per youth for each county are included in Appendix B of this report. For each of these entities, as well as for thirty-nine private service providers, we performed a detailed analysis of operations to compare the current conditions to the desired conditions defined earlier in this report. The results of this analysis are also included in Appendix B. Overall, AOCIJJSD collaborates and coordinates well with the other primary players in the Arizona juvenile justice system. The working relationship with ADJC appears to have improved over the last eight months with positive comments coming from both agencies. However, coordination and collaboration with other major state entities involved in the continuum of care for Arizona's vulnerable and at-risk children and youth such as ADES, ADHS, and ADE, are not as apparent. The major players in the Arizona juvenile justice system are, for the most part, doing their work well. However, there is no collective ownership of the entire delivery system for youth in this juvenile justice system. Until this happens, there will: Never be a completely effective, collaborative service continuum, Be no unified approach to performance and outcome measures, and
Executive Summary
Page ES 4
-
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
DRAFT
Be no overall capacity to determine what works and what does not work.
Findings and Recommendations
The components .ofthe Arizona juvenile justice continuum include:
Prevention, Intervention, Secure Care, and Post-Secure Care
Each component of the system is quite complex and, therefore, we have dedicated a section to each of these area which includes a description of the component, analysis of what type of juveniles are involved, a description of key stakeholders and funding and costs, performance and outcome measures and programs provided. We have not repeated detailed descriptions in this summary, but have summarized below the significant findings and recommendations that resulted from our evaluation of this system.
Prevention
Effective prevention programs are essential in keeping youth out of the juvenile justice system. Prevention has proven to be far more cost effective than incarceration. In a study conducted by the U.S. Justice Department, a delinquency prevention program in California was shown to produce a direct cost saving of $1.40 for every $1.OO spent in law enforcement and juvenile justice resources. Other similar examples of proven cost effective delinquency programs across the nation are highlighted in the Prevention section of this report. While we could find no comparable information to measure the impact of prevention programs in Arizona, it has been our experience and it is our conviction that funding for prevention programs can lead to direct cost savings for the juvenile justice system and for the broader criminal justice system. In Arizona, primary Prevention programs are designed to keep children from entering the juvenile justice system. Secondary prevention programs in Arizona are designed to keep juveniles previously involved in court referred services from re-entering the system. Prevention programs in Arizona, found in all 15 counties, come in many shapes and sizes, and may include one or more of the following components:
Educational programs and classes, Sports and recreation, Youth employment, Conflict resolution, Youth clubs, Mentoring, Advertising campaigns, and Parental support groups.
Executive Summary
Page ES - 5
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
DRAFT Funding for Arizona delinquency prevention programs comes from a wide variety of federal, state and local funding sources, as well as donations from community organizations, foundations and businesses. While it is impossible to quantifjr the total dollars spent on prevention services for Arizona children and youth, the total public funding for prevention in Arizona for fiscal year 1997 was approximately $24 million. In our review of Arizona delinquency prevention efforts, we have compiled the following significant findings: There is no statewide agency or body charged with the coordination of prevention efforts. While there are many prevention programs and activities underway in Arizona, and while some appear to be effective, there is no entity responsible for: Identifjring what is working and what is not, by use of performance and outcome measures; Sharing what works with families, communities, volunteers, local government and service providers, so that they do not have to "reinvent the wheel"; Identifjring areas of unmet need; Identifying areas of duplication or overlap; Informing and educating other components and programs in the juvenile justice continuum in order to leverage other sources of prevention funding or in kind resources. Most Prevention programs appear to successfully engage youth in meaningful activities, but fall short in involving the child's family. Current research found in juvenile justice literature and current federal juvenile delinquency policy clearly points to the involvement of families as crucial in prevention efforts and youth violence reduction. The total number of youth being served in Arizona's Prevention programs is unknown. Based on the above findings, we offer the following significant recommendations: Because of the high cost of juvenile incarceration, and because of the proven savings of cost effective delinquency Prevention programs in other states, we believe Arizona should continue to fimd delinquency Prevention programs. Arizona delinquency Prevention programs should be re-focused to actively involve families in all aspects of services and activities. Prevention programs should be initiated and developed at the community level, while at the same time a statewide body should be authorized to provide support for community based delinquency Prevention efforts, and to coordinate Prevention activities statewide, with a specific emphasis on information sharing, the identification of unmet needs, and the prevention of duplication and overlap.
Executive Summary
Page ES - 6
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
DRAFT
Arizona should require basic program data to be collected by all state b d e d Prevention programs, and develop outcome measures to assess the value of its Prevention programs.
Intervention
Unlike Prevention, Intervention focuses on delinquent behavior after the fact. Intervention includes those programs and services that deal with juveniles diverted from prosecution, or those juveniles adjudicated, but not committed to Secure Care in a State Institution. It involves a progression of less restrictive to more restrictive consequences. Those consequences are:
Diversion, Probation, and Consequences which includes treatment.
Probation Oficers supervise the youth who are in this component of the juvenile justice continuum. Overall, the impact of Intervention is positive in that over 60% of the youth arrested for the first time are not arrested again. Only a small proportion of the eligible Arizona youth population comes into contact with the Juvenile Court system.
Diversion
The goal of diversion is to direct youth away from formal court proceedings by assigning a set of consequences, that if successfully completed, result in avoidance of further court action. Diversion referrals come from the police, the schools and parents. Only youth who acknowledge responsibility for their actions are eligible. Chronic felony offenders, violent felony offenders and arrested for drunk driving are not eligible for Diversion. While the County Attorneys have been recently granted authority to run Diversion programs, they have allowed the County Probation Departments to continue to run these programs. In fiscal year 1997, over 17,000 youth were diverted in Arizona. Current law specifies the consequences that a Juvenile Probation Officer may apply to the diverted youth. The Probation Officer has the discretion authority to which and how many consequences will be assigned to the youth. The options include:
Unpaid community service work, Counseling programs, Education programs to prevent further delinquency or address issues such as substance abuse, Non-residential rehabilitation programs, and Payment of victim restitution or monetary assessment.
These services can be delivered by County Probation Departments, service providers, or non-paid community organizations.
Executive Summary
Page ES 7
-
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
DRAFT Community-Based Alternative Programs (CBAPs) focus on involving youth's peers and community in assigning consequences for delinquent acts; these include Teen Court and Community Justice Committees. The Teen Court is successhl in Pima and Maricopa and has a low recidivism rate. Diversion is funded through the AOC and County General fund dollars. The AOC funding is on a capitated basis. The amount for fiscal 1998, the first year of this approach was $126 per juvenile, scheduled to increase to $198 for fiscal 1999. Counties incur costs in excess of the state capitated amount. Diversion is a less expensive alternative to Probation. County cost accounting is not standardized, and provider costs vary widely. In our review of Diversion, we have compiled the following significant findings: Diversion is a cost-effective program. The positive outcomes justify the investment. There is a need for more community programs. Senate Bill 1446 has resulted in increased collaboration among County Attorneys and County Probation Departments. There appears to be some confusion about the definitions of Diversion and Prevention. Based on our findings, we offer the following significant recommendations: Develop standardized performance and outcome measures for implementation across all Diversion programs. Increase family involvement in Diversion programs. Clarify definitions of diversion and prevention.
Probation
Probation in Arizona can be defined as conditional freedom granted by the Juvenile Court to an adjudicated juvenile on the condition of continued good behavior and regular reporting to a Probation Officer. This is the stage of the continuum where the resources expended are more significant and youth behavior is more challenging. The core tenets of Probation are: The belief that youth can make positive changes in their behavior, Protection of the community, Preservation of the best interest of the child and stability of the family unit, Fostering law-abiding behavior, and Restitution to victims and society for the wrongs committed against them. In the previous subsection, we discussed the role of Diversion which is to steer youth away from the court system. Probation is designed to accomplish the same goal for those
Executive Summary
Page ES - 8
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
DRAFT
youth that have continued to commit delinquent offenses. Another difference between Diversion and Probation is the fact that youth on Probation have been adjudicated by the Juvenile Court. There are two types of Probation utilized in Arizona:
Standard Probation, and Juvenile Intensive Probation (JIPS) for serious or high risk offenders.
In addition to the regular supervision of the Probation Officer, consequences include:
Restitution, Community Service, Victim Reconciliation, Drug Testing, and Treatment.
Standard Probation is h d e d through State Aid for Probation and through the County General Fund on approximately 50150 basis. The total cost for fiscal 1997 was approximately $9 million. Our analysis resulted in an estimated average annual cost of $1,247 per juvenile in Standard Probation, and we estimate the daily cost per juvenile to be $3.42. These estimates do not include the cost of Treatment provided to these juveniles while on Probation. Arizona's average daily cost appear to be in the mid-range of Probation costs when compared to national averages that range between $2.20 and $7 a day for Standard Probation. Juvenile Intensive Probation Services is 100% funded by AOC. The fiscal year 1997 statewide-expended funds for JIPS were $9.3 million. The annualized average cost per youth in JIPS is estimated to be approximately $4,900. The estimated average daily costs per youth in JIPS is $13.42 in the state of Arizona. Nationally, the average daily cost per youth in intensive probation ranges from $7.45 to $16.20 a day. Arizona's average daily cost per youth for this program is well within the range of the national average. By policy, youth sentenced to JIPS are those who are at-risk of commitment to ADJC. Comparing the $13.42 average daily cost per youth for JIPS with the $130 average daily cost of Secure Care in a State Institution in Arizona results in an estimated $117 per day savings to keep the youth out of Secure Care. Given that the average length of stay in a State Institution in Arizona is approximately 188 days, this translates to a savings of over $21,000 dollars per juvenile who is supervised in the JIPS program as an alternative to commitment to a State Institution. With over 2,400 youth served in JIPS annually, the cost avoided by operating this program is $52 million per year. This program is clearly a cost-effective alternative to Secure Care in a State Institution. Currently AOCIJJSD is working in conjunction with the County Probation Departments to implement several performance and outcome measures starting with fiscal year 1999.
Executive Summary
Page ES 9
-
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
DRAFT
Based on our review of Probation, we have compiled the following significant findings: Probation is cost effective and JIPS is clearly a cost effective alternative to Secure Care in State Institutions. AOC and County Probation Departments have begun to develop performance and outcome measurements. There is limited information on the effectiveness of Treatment programs. There appears to be little family involvement in Probation Based on our findings, we offer the following significant recommendations: AOC and County Probation Departments must continue the development of performance and outcome measures. Performance and outcome measures should be developed specifically for treatment programs. AOC and County Probation should develop a specific plan designed to increase family involvement in the Probation process. AOC and County Probation, in conjunction with ADJC, must develop and support a single information system that contains accurate and meaningful data that will provide the basis for effective performance and outcomes measurement, and specifically allow for a comprehensive review of recidivism.
Treatment
The goal of treatment is to teach juveniles to be productive, law-abiding members of their community. Treatment can be anything from psychological assessments to secure residential care. Treatment offered through the juvenile justice system is actually a binding commitment that the juvenile must accept and complete in order to be released from the system. It is viewed as a consequence of delinquent behavior, and is utilized in every part of the juvenile justice continuum. Treatment services include behavior education classes, counseling, shelter care, and residential treatment options. These services are delivered by contract service providers. Through these outside agencies, County Probation Departments are able to purchase services to meet the specific needs of their populations. However, these services are limited due to geographic and financial considerations. In fiscal year 1997, AOC spent approximately 45% of its budget, or more than $19 million on Treatment services. These services are fbnded almost exclusively by state appropriations. The AOCIJJSD has made a significant effort to ensure that the youths in the juvenile system get effective, timely treatment in a culturally sensitive environment through contracts with private providers. AOC has developed an exemplary service procurement process.
Executive Summary
Page ES 10
-
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting DRAFT
Other than client satisfaction surveys, there is no capacity at this time to determine what works and what doesn't in treatment services, but AOC has recently begun to take action in this area. Based on our review of treatment, we have compiled the following significant findings: There is an overall shortage of substance abuse treatment programs in Arizona, and a shortage of residential treatment options in rural areas. Communication, coordination and collaboration among the participants in the in the delivery of treatment services needs improvement. High staff turnover rates among service providers are impacting the delivery of treatment services. Based on our findings, we offer the following significant recommendations: AOC and ADJC should work with Treatment providers to develop meaningful performance and outcome measures. AOC should develop a plan to expand substance abuse treatment services statewide and to develop residential treatment options in rural areas where are service gaps. AOC should take the lead in creating fiscal and program incentives to encourage the elimination of barriers to collaborative service delivery.
Secure Care
In Arizona, the Secure Care phase of the juvenile justice continuum includes county Detention facilities and State Institutions. Secure Care is defined in statute as "confinement in a facility that is completely surrounded by a locked and physically secure barrier with restricted ingress and egress". This is the most severe sentencing consequence available on the service continuum.
Detention
County detention is primarily reserved for more severe offenders as determined by the type of crime committed, the youth's court history and social history. Juveniles can be held in detention for a number of reasons including: Pre-adjudication, when juvenile is awaiting hearing; Consequence of a Probation or Parole violation; Sentencing option, imposed as part of the juvenile's disposition; and Post-disposition, when a juvenile may have to remain in Detention pending placement.
Executive Summary
Page ES - I I
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
DRAFT
The number and type of structured program activities and treatment services in county detention facilities vary by size and geographical location of each county. Generally the smaller more rural counties are limited in their programs to education, recreation and counseling as needed. The larger counties, such as Maricopa, are able to develop more specialized treatment programs for youth detained in their facilities. County detention operating costs are funded by each County's General Fund. Total Detention costs for all counties is not available because of lack of comparable accounting information across counties. This lack of data makes it difficult to determine the effectiveness of Detention programs as program costs are necessary to develop useful performance and outcome measures. In our review of Arizona detention facilities, we have compiled the following significant findings: Overall, county Detention facilities are adequate in available program activities. County Detention facilities are cost effective both in relation to other states' Detention costs and in relation to other Arizona out-of-home care costs. Maricopa and Pima use the Detention Risk Assessment Score Form (DRAF), a scoring instrument used to determine detention or release. The tool is only successfully used half the time, has limited capacity to predict recidivism, and in Maricopa County has a 50% override rate, as compared to the national standard of not over 15%. The county Detention system as a whole lacks standard performance and outcome measures. Based on our findings, we offer the following significant recommendations: With guidelines developed by the AOC, the counties should develop and maintain Detention performance and outcome measures. Counties should improve Detention risk assessment tools. Counties should enhance the consistency of detention accounting procedures.
State Institutions
The role of ADJC is to provide care, supervision, rehabilitation, treatment and education to those juveniles committed to its jurisdiction. ADJC are designed to enhance public protection by reducing the possibility of juveniles re-offending. As with other juvenile justice systems, Arizona's Secure Care is the most severe consequence in the juvenile justice continuum. The Arizona Secure Care institutions offer a variety of services including counseling, work experience and recreation, as well as:
Executive Summary
Page ES - 12
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
DRAFT
Education for six hours per day, utilizing a newly established competency based curriculum, and providing each youth with an individual education plan; Vocational programs, with a focus on maintenance work, assistant teaching and culinary arts; and Mandated, daily group therapy sessions. In fiscal year 1997, ADJC reported an average daily Secure Care cost of $130 per juvenile. Catalina Mountain is the highest at $175 per day, and Encanto at $162 per day. Because the youth at Encanto are severely emotionally disturbed, requiring extra staffing, individual rooms, intensive treatment and medication, it was assumed that the daily cost would be the highest of the Secure Care institutions. We found no explanation for this cost difference during our site visit. Because Catalina Mountain is a high quality facility, it may be that the higher cost is justified. However, this cost difference is substantial enough that additional analysis should be performed by ADJC. The analysis should include a review of outcome measures and results, which is the most meaningful way to determine if the daily costs of the facilities are justified. Over the last four years, ADJC has made significant strides towards instituting performance and outcome measures. ADJC is in the process of implementing and automating performance measures for secure care. Outcome measures are not as readily accessible as performance measures. AOC operates a completely different information system (JOLTS) than the ADJC YouthBase information system. Because the two systems are not linked, each agency is limited in their ability to determine outcomes. For instance, ADJC's current recidivism outcome measures are limited to ADJC related measures such as re-commitment to secure care, parole revocations and adult certification. Based on our review of Secure Care in State Institutions, we have compiled the following significant findings: Arizona Secure Care institutions may be facing a significant increase in admissions over the next ten years due to: Tougher sentencing policies arising from Proposition 102 and subsequent enabling legislation; and A projected 19% increase in the 8 to 17 year old age group between 1998 and 2008. Recent mandatory minimum sentencing legislation makes it more difficult for ADJC to manage the length of stay of the population it serves. There has been an increase in the number of low level offenders who are being sent to ADJC institutions for longer periods of time and a decrease in severe, violent offenders who are now being adjudicated and sentenced in adult court.
Executive Summary
Page ES 13
-
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
DRAFT
The turnover rate of first level Youth Correctional Officers exceeds any of the other related turnover rates in ADJC. While there is a need for increased treatment services, one of the most glaring gaps in ADJC programs is the lack of a comprehensive life skills program. ADJC continues to lead the state in the development, implementation and automation of performance and outcome measures, but the department is far from achieving all its goals. A complete analysis of recidivism and determination of cost effectiveness is impossible without linking the ADJC YouthBase and JOLTS information system. Based on our findings, we offer the following significant recommendations: The implementation of performance and outcome measures must continue as an ADJC priority ADJC, in conjunction with AOC and the County Probation Department must develop and support a single information system that contains accurate and meaningful data that will provide the basis for effective performance and outcomes measurement, and specifically allow for a comprehensive review of recidivism. ADJC should analyze the daily cost difference between Catalina Mountain and Encanto and determine if the higher cost is justified. ADJC should increase specialized treatment services with an emphasis on substance abuse, and develop a comprehensive life skills program for all Secure Care facilities. ADJC should work with the facilities and Probation and Parole Officers to ensure that comprehensive, meaningful and accurate information is documented in the case files in a timely and organized fashion. ADJC must continue to collaborate with AOCIJJSD, ADES, ADHS, ADE, local agencies and community organizations to insure that children and youth are receiving all necessary services.
Post Secure Care Conditional Liberty in Arizona
Post-Secure Care, also referred to as Parole, is the post-incarceration phase of the juvenile justice service continuum. The youth's freedom from Secure Care is based on certain conditions or consequences that must be met while living in the community. Conditional Liberty can include anything from Treatment to restitution to curfew. Juveniles are released from Conditional Liberty when they demonstrate stability in the community, are free from delinquent behavior, or when they reach the age of 18. Conditional Liberty staff supervise juveniles released from Secure Care and help them make the transition back to their home and community. In 1993 ADJC adopted the Graduated Continuum of Care Model. The goal of the Model is to provide more structure and clarity as to how and for whom intervention services will be utilized in the Conditional Liberty program. The Continuum of Care Model targets high-risk youth in Maricopa and Pima county.
Executive Summary
Page ES - 14
-
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
DRAFT
Conditional Liberty services have been extended beyond supervision to include an inhome evaluation of all ADJC youth in order to determine the proper treatment plan for the youth and to ascertain if the home is a viable option for the youth's return. In addition, parenting classes and counseling sessions are offered to the families. Another component to ADJC's Conditional Liberty is the availability of vocational and educational services. These services include job training, apprenticeship programs and vocational rehabilitation. ADJC also contracts for counseling, day treatment, residential placement and other services. ADJC recognizes the need to develop long term residential substance abuse programs, conduct disorder programs for females and residential sex offender programs. Conditional Liberty services are funded through state appropriations to ADJC. Actual expenditures for fiscal year 1997 were $15.6 million. The estimated cost of Conditional Liberty is $2242 per youth. Arizona falls well within the range of nation wide parole costs. With the assistance of the National Council on Crime and Delinquency, ADJC is in the process of implementing a comprehensive set of Conditional Liberty performance and outcome measures. ADJC recently implemented a workload management system that bases caseloads on the number of hours to be worked for each type of case assigned, rather than just the number of juveniles. On an annual basis, Conditional Liberty serves approximately 2,500 juveniles. The annual recidivism percentage is approximately 60% for all parolees. This is consistent with the recidivism rate for offenders with ten or more prior referrals who have received consequences from the court. More to the point, it is a reflection of reality. In our review of Post- Secure Care, we have compiled the following significant findings: Expanding the role of Conditional Liberty beyond supervision is effective. From 1992 to 1997, the number of youths suspended from Conditional Liberty dropped 74%. Conditional Liberty is beginning to offer more comprehensive services, including in home evaluation, family counseling, job training and vocational rehabilitation. This not only increases the chance for successll transition for juveniles, but also enhances public protection. The new Conditional Liberty caseload management system, based on workload and acknowledging the greater time and difficulty of certain types of cases, is an effective management tool that will assist managers in supervision of parole officers and reduce burnout. New approaches to Conditional Liberty have given rise to increased collaboration, although collaboration between ADJC and the public schools needs improvement. The fact that the fundamentals of identifling performance and outcome measures have been completed is very encouraging.
Executive Summary
Page ES 15
-
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
DRAFT Based on our findings, we offer the following significant recommendations: Automation and the implementation of performance measures must continue as an ADJC priority in conjunction with AOC and County Probation departments.
An evaluation of the newly established ADJC Continuum of Care Model must be completed to determine if resources are being utilized effectively.
Collaboration and communication must be ongoing between all the players in the Arizona juvenile justice service continuum.
Core Findings and Recommendations
Core findings and recommendations relate to the fundamental, basic elements of any review. The core findings and recommendations presented here arise from our comprehensive review of the Arizona juvenile justice system, and have such a significant impact on the system that they warrant special attention by those policy makers and others who strive to make this system work well for juveniles, their families and the citizens of Arizona. The four core findings arising from this review are:
lnvolvement of Families, Collective Ownership through use of Outcomes, Collaboration, and Joint Technology Support.
lnvolvement of Families
The community is essential in deterring juvenile crime, and will be addressed in our final core issue. However here the focus is on the role of the family. The family is the stakeholder: Closest to the juvenile, Has the most contact with the juvenile, At times, is the most influential with juvenile, and Maintains this contact for the longest period of time. Family involvement is a core issue in Arizona which can directly influence cost effectiveness as well as outcomes for children and youth. Current research found in juvenile justice literature and current federal juvenile delinquency policy clearly points to the involvement of families as crucial in prevention efforts and youth violence reduction, and Arizona family statistics confirm this. Intervention that simply focuses on the juvenile and ignores the family, will not work. Most Arizona Prevention programs appear to successfully engage youth in meaningful activities, but fall short in involving the youth's family. In the area of Intervention, we
Page ES - 16
Executive Summary
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
DRAFT
found that in a majority of cases, families are not involved in Treatment. A review of Probation, Treatment and Secure Care case files shows that almost one-third of the files were missing any reference to family data. A review of Treatment provider case files indicates very little family outreach or engagement in the youth's Treatment program. The JOLTS captures very little family data. Other than the In-Home Family Evaluations conducted by ADJC Conditional Liberty Services, there appears to be little evidence of family involvement in the Arizona juvenile justice service continuum. ADJC has recently begun to place more emphasis on engaging the family early and often. But outcome data is not currently at sufficient enough detail at ADJC to "test" the theory that the engagement of the youth's family early and often in the Conditional Liberty program is "working". We strongly suggest that outcomes be established to validate the opportunities and benefits that could be derived from shifting from a "youthlincident" to a "family" focus approach. Our recommendations are: Arizona Prevention programs should be refocused to actively involve families in all aspects of services and activities. To the degree they are not doing so, judges should exercise their authority to order family members into parenting classes, other appropriate Treatment services and shared consequences with their child. Provider reimbursement rates should acknowledge and be contingent on a proactive effort to involve the family in the Treatment plan. Outcome targets and measures should be established and monitored related to family functioning before and after Treatment. Probation and Parole Officers should be required to conduct family assessments much l i e those done in the Conditional Liberty program operated by ADJC and all results and information about the family, their social and economic status and other special needs or considerations. This data should be updated as appropriate when progress is made or circumstances change for the family. Ideally, this information should be recorded in an automated case management system so that the information can be readily exchanged with other stakeholders in the juvenile justice continuum.
Collective Ownership by use of Outcomes
The juvenile justice continuum, as it is currently designed, has a number of automatic "hand-offs7' built into it, where juveniles are passed through from one part of the continuum to another, but with no one entity having an "ownership position". Each entity, including the policy-making bodies plays a significant role, but when problems occur, accountability is easily evaded and blame easily shifted. This lack of ownership extends to the other large human service delivery systems. There are multiple problem youth in the juvenile justice system and in the other systems. In fact many of the are in more than one system. This is why there continues to be a
Executive Summary
Page ES - 17
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
DRAFT
debate in Arizona about creating a "children's agency" to stimulate a more collaborative, "holistic" approach to developing solutions for these children and youth. The issues these youth are facing are complex. Their family's problems are many and it takes every agency working collaboratively to solve this problem. While some deference is paid to collaboration, few examples were identified that suggest all involved public agencies worked closely together to solve these problems jointly, with shared resources and funds and as equal partners. Our recommendations are: The Governor and the Legislature must take the lead in creating an environment of collective ownership for the delivery of juvenile justice services as well as all services to children, and Arizona should not initiate a large scale reorganization as the way to achieve collaborative service delivery.
Our proposal is that Arizona, through leadership of the Arizona Juvenile Justice Committee and with the cooperation of the juvenile justice system, attempt to solve this problem by developing outcome targets that cross all areas of the juvenile justice continuum. The following high-level steps would need to be completed to implement this approach.
Adopt outcomes. Establish statewide annual and five-year targets. Develop baseline. Engage outcome champions. Develop action plans. Implement action plans. Remove barriers. Achieve targeted performance. Receive and invest incentives earned for performance.
-
We are further recommending that a significant amount of funding (e.g., 10 to 15%) be withheld from all state agencies to be reserved as an incentive pool that is earned for achievement of outcome targets. The earned incentive would then be distributed to all agencies who contributed to meeting outcome targets. We would not suggest this innovative strategy to many states. The reason is they lack the leadership capabilities required to make this type of change work. Leadership exists in Arizona at the executive, legislative, agency and county level. Further, the juvenile justice system in Arizona works. In other words, implementing an outcome approach is possible as the energy required to get a new approach like this implemented would not negatively impact the results already being achieved by the Arizona juvenile justice system. This Arizona system and the people who operate it are quite capable.
Executive Summary
Page ES - 18
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
DRAFT We believe implementing this type of approach to outcomes in Arizona where all agencies share in the success of the same outcomes is the only way to make a real and lasting impact for families involved in the juvenile justice system in Arizona. Further, if successfully implemented in this system: It could be rolled out to other human service agencies in the state, and It would help to maintain Arizona as a leader in the juvenile justice arena. This is a unique opportunity in Arizona. We hope the Arizona Juvenile Justice Committee will take on this important change and help to remove any barriers to its success.
Collaboration
In the context of the planning, fimding, design and delivery of human services, collaboration requires:
An open, mutual exchange of information;
A willingness to share resources; A capacity to understand that at times there are advantages to at least a partial sharing of power or relaxation of control;
An ability to move beyond the categorical fimding limits, the specific service system culture and the professional practice values that usually are prevalent in any single service system;
An experiential knowledge that many vulnerable and at-risk children and youth
manifest multiple problem needs and therefore require multiple system responses; and A willingness to be accountable for common outcomes. Results of our evaluation indicate that both within the juvenile justice continuum and beyond, there are some positive examples of collaboration. On the other hand, if one applies the definition of collaboration identified above, while AOCIJJSD and ADJC work well in some specific instances, their overall collaborative working relationship with each other and with the counties and local communities could be substantially improved. Even more important, there is no effective statewide coordination and technical support for local and regional delinquency prevention efforts. this evaluation indicated that ADJC and AOCIJJSD have not developed an ongoing collaborative working relationship with ADE, ADES and ADHSIBHS. We understand this is an issue under initial consideration in the Governor's Community Policy Office. There also appears to be no unified set of principles set out in Arizona statute or other statewide policy level articulating a policy fiamework for coordination and collaboration. An example of such a set of principles can be found in the state of Washington. The
Executive Summary
Page ES 19
-
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
DRAFT
Family Policy Principles are an eloquent and compelling statutory commitment to vulnerable children and their families. Our recommendations are: Arizona should develop statutory policy principles that can guide future policy decisions and the delivery of comprehensive services to children, youth and their families; the principles should: Value collaborative planning, problem solving and service delivery; Prioritize family involvement in service delivery; and Reinforce the need for local planning, community-based Prevention and an outcomes-based focus. Arizona should establish a state level policy council including leadership representatives from the Governor's Office, ADJC, AOCIJJSD, ADES, ADE, ADHS and other appropriate organizations, where the primary focus is the improvement of coordination and collaborative service delivery. The Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission should be authorized as the state agency responsible for coordination and technical support for Arizona regional and local delinquency Prevention efforts ADJC and AOCIJJSD should strongly consider pooling their resources to solve the rural problem of insufficient services available in their communities.
Joint Technology Support
Data Exchange
As we have established in the previous discussions on collaboration, free and easy exchange of information and data is a criteria to realize the full value of collaboration. During our evaluation we determined that all players, large and small, in the Arizona juvenile justice system operate on different computer systems and uniquely identify the youth or family. As a result, significant effort is required to try to perform a simple match of youth from the juvenile justice system to ADE, ADES or ADHSIBHS. While limited matches between two of these systems have been conducted in the past, the results have been less than satisfactory due to the effort required to complete the match, the fact that the data was already out of date by the time the match was shared as these youth move through these systems very quickly and, because of the unique identifiers, there was lack of confidence that the match results were comprehensive. The bottom line is, the state of Arizona has no efficient or effective way to track juveniles across state systems. Even within the juvenile justice system, AOC and ADJC have different computer systems. For Maricopa and Pima Counties, AOC does create a daily electronic file from JOLTS to pass to the ADJC YouthBase system that contains the offense history of the
Page ES - 20
Executive Summary
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
DRAFT
youth that were committed that day. AOC is not able to perform this electronic transfer of case information for any youth that is committed to ADJC from a rural county. In this case, the information is exchanged in a manual fashion. Further, it should be noted, that this data exchange is currently one way. That is to say that AOC provides information to ADJC, but currently lacks the capacity to receive information back from ADJC. Given this lack of exchangeable data, is not reasonable or practical in Arizona to develop a comprehensive cost analysis of what juveniles, involved with multiple agencies in or out of the juvenile justice system, cost the state of Arizona.
ADJC YouthBase Automated System
ADJC has an exemplary commitment to updating and improving its information system. The ADJC is in the process of enhancing its capability to upload information from the AOC JOLTS system into YouthBase. A near-term goal is to provide a more comprehensive assessment of the youth in the Arizona juvenile justice system. The ADJC is also developing a database in which the relevant factors can be assessed, such as the risk score, the risk-needs evaluation; the Treatment proposed and completed (including education information); and the final outcomes (such as recidivism) can be determined. With all of these components automated on the same system, the agency should be able to develop meaningful program outcome measures and more closely pinpoint the cause of success andfor failure of the youth. ADJC hopes to have this work completed by fiscal year 1999. Once ADJC is fully automated, they will begin the process of producing timely and meaningful management reports to guide program design and service delivery. These reports will provide more meaningful data as complete and consistent data is detailed in the system over time.
AOC JOLTS and Other Automated Systems
AOC's automation system, JOLTS, is utilized by AOCIJJSD and all 15 counties to record information and status regarding juveniles, as well as manage Probation caseloads. There are currently three versions of JOLTS in operation with separate systems in Maricopa, Pima and the rural counties. There is a wealth of information in the system, however there are gaps in certain data. Given the fact that the technology that is used in JOLTS is more than 20 years old and the system is very complex, AOC has developed a number of other databases, like the Treatment billing system, which performs certain business functions that JOLTS does not provide. While this gets the work done, it is problematic. Further, as noted in our case file reviews, the JOLTS system does maintain key information about the juvenile. What is does not maintain is informatidn that would be more characteristic of information that would be used by a Probation Officer to manage the youth's case (i.e., progress notes obtained from Treatment Providers, educators or other key stakeholders).
Executive Summary
Page ES 21
-
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
DRAFT
Aside from better, more readily exchangeable case information that would help both Probation Officers, Treatment Providers and ADJC, having this case management functionality included in a comprehensive information system would greatly enhance AOC's capability to manage with performance and outcome information. Given the various systems operated by AOC, it becomes impractical to combine all of these databases any more than one time per year. AOC fights this battle every time they even think about preparing management reports and outcome measures. Couple this issue with the fact that AOC has very few technical resources available to support their information systems, they are often required to purchase programming and technical system support from outside experts. Our recommendations are: Although AOCIJJSD continues to move toward gathering more comprehensive information on the youth in the Arizona juvenile justice system, critical data from other entities (e.g., ADJC, ADHSBHS and ADES) are not easy to obtain or match to enhance their overall understanding of these youth and their families. All the players, including AOC, ADJC, counties ADE, ADES and ADHSBHS to develop a strategic systems plan to comprehensively support the Arizona juvenile justice system. We highly recommend that new systems developed in the state, like CHILDS for ADES Child Welfare, have a requirement that they.build the capacity to interface and support data exchange and use with other human service agencies in the state. Given the wide variety of technology platforms in the state, this is likely going to have to be accomplished through use of: A data warehouse, andlor Some other type of technology middle ware.
0
Given the status of development of the YouthBase system at ADJC, it may be possible that they could play a leadership role in creating an automated environment that supports the other agencies that support the Arizona juvenile justice continuum of care. AOCIJJDS must continue to move toward a single information system that contains accurate, meaninglid and consistent data to allow the basis for effective performance and outcome measurement.
Conclusion
It is our evaluation that the Arizona juvenile justice system is one of the best in the nation. Could it improve? Yes. Could it do a better job of justifying the public investment by developing and reporting outcome and performance measures? Yes. Are there changes that could be made that would make this an even better, more costeffective and efficient? Yes.
Executive Summary
Page ES - 22
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
DRAFT It is our belief that if the leadership of Arizona adopts the recommendations included throughout this report, but more specifically the core recommendations set forth in this section, that the Arizona juvenile justice system could operate more efficiently and effectively. The largest gains would be in the area of those youth that are served by multiple agencies across the state, are at the highest risk of becoming life-long dependents (e.g., in the adult corrections, social services or mental health services) on state systems. It is worth it to try to improve the results. Even if it reaches just a few juveniles, the potential long-term returns are material. As with many recommendations, more significant value would be achieved if all of these recommendations were adopted within short order of one another. The reason is that, if automation was enhanced to freely share information among agencies, they would: Better know what persons to coordinate and collaborate on; Have much more robust performance and outcome measures as they could combine the data from their agency with that of others to get a comprehensive view of results; and Understand better the interventions that work with families as well as the juvenile increasing their effectiveness and opportunity to convert members of the family to self-sufficient, productive citizens as opposed to life-long system users. Couple these benefits with increased collective ownership resulting in joint action planning and implementation to achieve results. This is a unique opportunity in Arizona. We hope the Arizona Juvenile Justice Committee will take on this important change and help to remove any barriers to its success.
Executive Summary
Page ES - 23
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
DRAFT
Section 1
Introduction
Draft
Table of Contents
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Re~ort
Deloitte Consultinq
DRAFT
Background
The Juvenile Justice Committee of the Arizona State Legislature (the "Committee") selected Deloitte & Touche Consulting Group (Deloitte Consulting) as the vender to conduct an evaluation of all Arizona agencies that provide services to juveniles who are diverted from prosecution in Arizona juvenile courts or who are adjudicated as a delinquent or incorrigible. This evaluation was conducted as part of Laws 1997, Chapter 220, which implemented voter approved changes to the juvenile justice system. The project was approved in the middle of February 1998 and began on March 1,1998. Deloitte Consulting has completed this evaluation study encompassing the following areas: The performance, with an emphasis on outcome measures, of all Arizona agencies and the programs administered by those agencies that meet the statutory requirements for the scope of the study; and The cost effectiveness of the services of all agencies that meet the statutory requirements for the scope of this study. Given the scope of the evaluation and the necessary tasks as set forth in our proposal to the Committee, Deloitte Consulting is submitting our final report including recommendations for improvements in all Arizona agency performance and cost effectiveness of the juvenile justice system programs.
Committee Project Coordination
The Arizona Juvenile Justice Committee designated Representative Tom Smith as Project Coordinator. As Project Coordinator, Representative Smith served as the key contact for our team and was a significant contributor to the project by: Providing guidance throughout the evaluation, Coordinating project tasks and activities, and Receiving regular project status briefings. Representative Smith has been very attentive to this project, and has attended every project status meeting, committee meeting, as well as special meetings and focus groups. Representative Smith has honorably represented the Committee by his commitment to improving the Arizona juvenile justice system, forthright guidance, participation and unwavering drive to do the right thing for Arizona.
Section 1
Introduction
Page 1 - 1
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consultinq
DRAFT
Other Significant Contrtbutors to this Project
In evaluations of this nature, it is in the state's best interests that the review team be dealt with openly and honestly to ensure it has the best information available to help Arizona build a better juvenile justice system. Many individuals went above and beyond their duty in supporting project activities, thus indicating their interest in improving the Arizona juvenile justice system. These persons include:
Honorable William O'Neill, Pinal County Superior Court, Jesus Diaz, Pinal County Juvenile Probation, Donna Noriega, Administrative Office of the Courts, Juvenile Justice Services Division (AOCIJJSD), Bobbie Chinsky, AOCIJJSD, Cheri Townsend, Maricopa County Juvenile Probation, David Gasper, Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections, John Barrett, Maricopa County Juvenile Probation, and Judy Strahler, Pima County Juvenile Probation.
Their assistance, insights and support strengthened the quality of this report. In addition to the individuals above, others also spent time and contributed to the success of this project including:
39 Providers of Juvenile Justice Services, Juvenile Court Judges in all Counties, County Attorney's in all Counties, Juvenile Probation Management and Staff in all Counties, Staff of AOC, Staff of ADJC, and Staff of the Governor's Office for Children.
Evaluations of this nature require all parties' involvement, cooperation and work. The cooperation and participation of those noted above have enhanced the quality of this report for Arizona.
lntroduction to the Remainder of this Report
We believe the methodology employed in this evaluation project offers Arizona an efficient and effective approach to identifying the outcomes and cost effectiveness of Arizona's juvenile justice programs. Our work focused on identifying strengths and weaknesses in the management and organizational structures of the juvenile justice system. This identification was achieved by assessing positive attributes and core
Section 1 Introduction
Page 1 - 2
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Re~ort
Deloitte Consulting
DRAFT
problems previously unidentified in other studies, and by validating findings obtained in other studies. In doing so, we maximized the results of our efforts and minimized the resource impact on the Arizona juvenile justice programs. This approach allowed us to focus greater attention on the development of specific recommendations, if followed, will allow the Committee to implement visible and lasting improvements in the Arizona juvenile justice system. The results of our evaluation and associated recommendations are found in the following sections of this report:
Section 2 Section 3 Section 4 Section 5 Section 6 Section 7 Section 8 Approach and Methodology Juvenile Justice System and Stakeholders Prevention Intervention Secure Care Post-Secure Care Core Findings and Recommendations
The following section entitled Approach and Methodology sets forth basic premises and conditions upon which our approach is based. Our approach, methods and standards have been developed throughout our extensive experience with and analysis of the areas of juvenile justice organizational structure, management and administrative practices, systems of care and community integration. We recognize that each juvenile justice system is unique. While all our assumptions may not necessarily apply in every system, we do believe that many of the fundamentals are key to the administration of an efficient and effective juvenile justice program.
Section 1
Introduction
Page 1 3
-
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
DRAFT
Section 2
Methodology
Draft
Table of Contents
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consultinq
DRAFT
Section 2
Approach and Methodology
An evaluation of juvenile justice and human service programs indicates they tend to be more complicated than they appear, due to the required interdependencies of multiple providers and agencies. This has been the case in the Arizona juvenile justice system. We first reviewed relevant Arizona legislation. Using this background information, we compiled a comprehensive list of individuals with whom we felt it critical to conduct our initial interviews. A summary list of these individuals includes:
Juvenile Justice Committee Co-Chairpersons and Other Members, Two Representativesof the Juvenile Court Judges, Two Representativesof the County Juvenile Probation Departments, Two Representatives of the Treatment Providers, Governor's Office, Two Representatives of the County Attorneys, Leadership of the Department of Juvenile Corrections, Leadership of the Administrative Offices of the Court, Leadership of the Arizona Department of Health Services, Behavioral Health Services, Leadership of the Arizona Department of Economic Security, and Leadership of the Arizona Department of Education.
[Note: A complete list of all the providers included in the Site Visits is included in Appendix A of this report.]
The purpose of the interviews we conducted included: Validating our understanding of program service delivery; Identifying a comprehensive list of service providers; and Identifying key persons with whom additional interviews or focus group sessions could be conducted to complete the budget and expense framework, the continuum of service framework, the outcome goals and the desired conditions for operations. Using the gathered information and other research, we identified programs that receive juvenile justice funding and the juveniles "eligible" for these programs. Using this approach, we developed a framework for the continuum of services provided to juveniles in Arizona. In addition, we developed the initial framework for budget and expenses, outcome measures and desired conditions for operations. Another critical deliverable developed while using this information was a comprehensive list of service providers. Finally, we used the information gathered in these processes to develop the site visit interview and information gathering guides, as well as the site visit plan. [Note: All of
Section 2
Approach and Methodology
Page 2 1
-
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Re~ort
Deloitte Consultinq
DRAFT
these interim deliverables were formally delivered and approved by the Committee on June 18, 1998. They are bound in a separate report that is available upon request, but has not been included in this final report do to its size.]
One of the tools developed by Deloitte Consulting for this type of project is the Desired Conditions of Operations Matrix (DCOM). The Desired Conditions of Operations Matrix represent the essential elements that are critical to the successful operation of juvenile justice programs. We have tailored this framework to the specific conditions in Arizona juvenile justice programs, as ascertained from information gathered in the above referenced interviews. The resultant desired conditions of operations are included in Appendix B of this report. Upon completion of these tasks, we conducted site visits. The first site visit group included 39 Treatment providers that deliver consequences and provide services to juveniles who were diverted from prosecution in Arizona Juvenile Courts, or who are adjudicated as delinquent or incorrigible. These providers were selected if they received revenues received from AOC or ADJC in excess of $90,000 in fiscal year 1997. The Treatment providers included in our site visits receive approximately 90% of the Treatment funds spent by the AOC and ADJC on an annual basis. The site visits for these treatment agencies consisted of the following activities: Interviews with agency management and key staff; Review contract compliance; Review licensing or other complaints, if any; Review financial information that includes completion of a matrix that identifies key costs for comparison with other agencies providing services; Program review, specifically focusing on performance and outcome management, as compared to the desired operating conditions identified prior to site visits; Reviews of a sample of closed case files to validate program approach, desired conditions of operations and outcomes reporting; Reviewed data from various juvenile justice information systems to benchmark recidivism by consequence type; Review and validation of all outcome and performance management information; and, Review and determination of how management and oversight agencies utilize outcome and performance information to make improved decisions regarding how services are delivered and improved. As part of this evaluation, all County Probation Offices and three of the five Conditional Liberty Offices were visited. Additionally, we visited every county detention facility and
Section 2
Approach and Methodology
Page 2 - 2
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final R e ~ o r t
Deloitte Consulting
DRAFT
interviewed 13 of 15 County Attorneys, or their designees and a number of other significant parties at the county level. The site visits at these locations consisted of the following activities: Interviews with agency management and key staff; Interviews with juvenile court judge and county attorneys; Review of financial information; Program review, specifically focusing on performance and outcome management, as compared to the desired operating conditions identified prior to site visits; Reviews of a sampling of closed cases to validate program approach, desired conditions of operations and outcomes reporting; Review of data fiom various juvenile justice information systems to benchmark recidivism by consequence type; Review and validation of all outcome and performance management information; and, Review and determination of how management and oversight agencies utilize outcome and performance information to make improved decisions regarding how services are delivered and improved. Data gathered at these site visit interviews and reviews was analyzed and evaluated with ow external juvenile justice experts. This analysis, along with the initial research conducted, allowed us to develop our findings and recommendations. We then conducted five focus groups with key stakeholders from across the state to validate our findings, and solicit their insights on "what is working" and "what is not". Stakeholders in the focus groups included:
Representatives of the Juvenile Justice Committee, Representatives of the Juvenile Court Judges, Representatives of the Juvenile Probation Departments, Representatives of the Treatment Providers, Representatives of the County Attorneys, Leadership of the Department of Juvenile Corrections, Leadership of the Administrative Offices of the Court - Juvenile Justice Services Division, and Other interested parties.
m
e
In these sessions we reviewed some preliminary findings. The participants in the focus groups provided constructive feedback on the analysis, and presented their insights as to what they feel are appropriate recommendations for Arizona, given the preliminary findings.
Section 2
Approach and Methodology
Page 2 - 3
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consultinq
DRAFT
The focus group participants identified a number of additional analyses and research items that we have included. Using information gathered in this manner has enhanced the overall quality of the findings and recommendations included in this report. Development of the final report has included developing draft reports and reviewing them with appropriate persons as designated by the Project Coordinator, Representative Smith. The sections that follow set forth the specific findings and recommendations for each area of the Arizona Juvenile Justice Continuum. These include:
System Structure and Stakeholders; Prevention; Intervention, including: Diversion, Probation, and Treatment; Secure Care; and Post-Secure Care.
Each section includes a description of findings and recommendations associated with this part of the juvenile justice continuum. The final section of this report identifies the Core Findings and Recommendations. We believe these Core Recommendations include potential enhancements in the policies and practices throughout the state of Arizona.
Section 2
Approach and Methodology
Page 2 4
-
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
DRAFT
Section 3
Juvenile Justice System Structure and Stakeholders
Draft
Table of Contents
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
DRAFT
Section 3
Juvenile Justice System Structure and StakehoIders
Juvenile Justice System Structure in Arizona
In Arizona, many entities have a role in influencing and serving children who have been adjudicated as delinquent or diverted from delinquency and prosecution. Exhibit 3-1 below, is a graphical depiction of the major stakeholders, by component, involved in the lives of children in Arizona's juvenile justice service continuum.
Primary Prevention
Family Communily Groups + Big BrotherdSisters + Churches + BoyslGirlsClub + Other Community Groups Arizona Department of Education + Safe Schwls + DARE + Other Department of Education Programs Probation Law Enforcement Adminrstrative Officeof the Courts + JCRF Funded Programs Governors Office for Children Behavioral Heallh Services and Department of Economic Security + Healthy Start + Head Start + Kids Care Other Services JuvenileCourt + CASA FCRB (at AOC) + Dependency
I I
Services
Intervention
Administrative Officeof the Courts + JCRF Funded Programs Arizona Department of Education + Safe Schwls + Other Department of Education Programs County Juvenile Probation Secure Care OutofHme Care EducationNocatonal Training + Day & Evening Support + Counseling EvaluationlAssessment Supervision + Diversion + Community Work Victim Resbtution + Teen Court Local and State Law Enfmement BehavioralHealth Outof Home CarelTreatment Counseling EvalualionlAssessment Other Behavioral Health Services county Attorneys DES + Placement Foster Care
;
I
Incarceration
Department of Juvenile Corrections + Secure Care EducationNocational Training + Counseling + Eval./Assesmenl + Recreation Medical Services County Juvenile Detelllion Faciliis + Secure Care + EducationNocational Training + Counseling + Eval.lAssessnent + Recreation + Medical Services
I 1 I I
:.
I I
:
I
I I I I I I
.
I
. .
-
I I
I
+
I I
I
I
----
.
-
.
PostIncarceration
Department of Juvenile Corrections Parole + Out of Home Care + EducationNocatonal Training Day & Evening Support + Counseling
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
:.
I I I I
I
. .
Adult
Departmentof Corrections Adult Parole Adult Probation County Jail
County Probation OutofHome Care + EducationNocational Training + Day & Evening Support Counseling
-
I
I
I
I
I I
I
-
I
I
I I
I
I
I I I
I
I I
I I I I I I I
The most significant players in the publicly-funded system, depicted above, include the:
Administrative Offices of the Court, Juvenile Justice Services Division (AOCIJJSD or AOC), Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections (ADJC), and Fifteen County Superior Court Juvenile Probation Departments.
Although these are the most significant players in this juvenile system, there are a number of other additional players that contribute to, or detract from, the success of this
Section 3 Juvenile Justice Structure And Stakeholders
Page 3 - 1
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
DRAFT
juvenile justice system. Some of these are publicly h d e d , while others are not. They include:
The juvenile and his family. The juvenile's neighborhood and community, Arizona Department of Education and the youth's school, Law enforcement, County Attorney's, Treatment Providers, Arizona Department of Economic Security (ADES), and Arizona Department of Health Services, Behavioral Health Services (ADHSIBHS).
The first four players are involved in every case that comes to the attention of Arizona's juvenile justice system, as they are involved at such an integral level in the "protective factors" that establish the youth's success, or lack of success, in being a productive, law abiding citizen. Protective factors are qualities or conditions that moderate a juvenile's exposure to risk. The last four players on the list may be involved in the case. If the youth is arrested, the County Attorney often plays a role, even if the role is as minor as deciding which offenses are eligible for diversion or prosecution. If the youth is arrested and is sent to a Treatment program as a consequence for their delinquent acts, whether it be to a Diversion program or a Residential Treatment Center, then Treatment Providers play a significant role. ADES and ADHSIBHS may already be involved in the juvenile's life or may become involved as a result of a referral from the juvenile justice agencies. It takes all of these major players, working together, to make this system work. If one player does not do its part, it creates more work for all the others. To begin to understand the structure and magnitude of the Arizona juvenile justice system, we performed an examination of the costs and related funding for the juvenile justice continuum provided to youth in this system. The following graph, Exhibit 3-2, depicts the overall spending and sources of spending in the Arizona juvenile justice system for the year ended June 30, 1997, for the publicly funded juvenile justice entities.
Section 3 Juvenile Justice Structure And Stakeholders
Page 3 - 2
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
DRAFT
Exhibit 3-2 Juvenile Justice (JJ) -State (Appropriatedand NonAppropriated)and County Expenditures
pxckrdng JJ Costa kcunvdbv ADES andADHS1
YearEndedJune30,1997 Source: AOC, ADJC, JLBC
I
Ju6ldary- Suparlw C o u
Department of Juvenile Comdlonr
I County Funding -Superior Coult. J
I
The other players in the system all operate on different computer systems and uniquely identify the youth or family. As a result, significant effort is required to try to match youth from the juvenile justice system to ADE, ADES or ADHSBHS. While limited matches between two of these systems have been conducted in the past, the results have been less than satisfactory due to the effort required to complete the match, the fact that the data was already out of date by the time the match was shared as these youth move through these systems very quickly and, because there were no unique identifiers, there was little confidence that the match results were comprehensive. The bottom line is, the state of Arizona has no efficient or effective way to track juveniles across state systems. Given this past experience, the effort required and the concern about the quality of the results, it was determined not to be efficient and effective to ask these agencies to conduct a match that would allow us to provide a more comprehensive cost analysis of what these juveniles cost the state of Arizona. Consequently, the chart in Exhibit 3-2 does not include spending occurring in the other entities involved with the Arizona juvenile justice system that are providing related services to children in Arizona who may be atrisk for entering or may be currently known to the system. We also derived average annual costs for consequences imposed upon youth in the Arizona juvenile justice system. Exhibit 3-3, below, provides a summary of major programs and services and their related annual costs per juvenile for fiscal year 1997 (as a new program, diversion costs presented are from fiscal year 1998) offered in the continuum of care.
Section 3 Juvenile Justice Structure And Stakeholders
Page 3 - 3
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
DRAFT
Exhibit 3-3
Average Cost Per Juvenile Served
As displayed in this graph, the public cost of managing juvenile delinquency becomes increasingly more expensive as a youth moves from least restrictive (i.e., Intervention) to the most restrictive (i.e., Secure Care in a State Institution or Incarceration) component of the Arizona juvenile justice continuum. It is simple to see from these costs that it is in the best interest of all concerned, but particularly the state and the juvenile, that the juvenile's delinquent behavior never lead to a situation where they are committed to Secure Care in a State Institution. It is important to understand the juvenile crime problem in Arizona to obtain a perspective on the youth that are presented to the juvenile justice system and what they have done to get themselves there. To gain this understanding of juvenile crime, it is important to review the juvenile justice track, or continuum, in light of the number of youth that reach each stage of the continuum. Exhibit 3-4 on the following page summarizes the disposition of juveniles entering the system in fiscal year 1997
Section 3 Juvenile Justice Structure And Stakeholders
Page 3 - 4
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
DRAFT
First, it is important to note that only 7.5% of the total juvenile population in Arizona received a referral to Juvenile Court during this year. Of those referred, 29% were brought into the system, warned and released; and another 34% were diverted from prosecution through programs such as Teen Court and unpaid community work.
In other words, 63% of thejuveniles entering the system were not charged with a crime by the County Attorneys.
Roughly 35% of the youth presenting in the system (3% of children in Arizona's total population) had petitions filed by the County Attorneys, where formal charges were brought against them. Of those petitions filed, 40% were either dismissed or resulted only in a penalty, with the remaining 60% receiving consequences administered by the primary players in Arizona's juvenile justice system.
Less than 2% of the total juvenile population of Arizona were processed through thejuvenile court system, resulting in significant consequences and treatment.
Other Arizona juvenile crime statistics worthy of mention include:
Of the 50,210 youth who were referred to the uvenilejustice system in fiscal year 1997,46% were first-time offenders. Felony crimes accounted for 34% of the referrals to the system, the remaining offenses were misdemeanor, administrative, status and other. While 53% of the total juvenile population are male, they commit over 68% of the offenses being referred to Juvenile Court. Of thosejuveniles referred to the system, 3,039, or 6%, committed violent acts, or felonies against a person. Thesejuveniles represent one half of one percent of the total juvenile population in Arizona. The remainder of the crimes included drug charges, fights, crimes against property, such as theft, and other status and administrative offenses.
Many of these statistics are surprising to policy-makers and citizens who are not entirely familiar with Arizona's juvenile justice system. Some of this information negates typical stereotypes of the magnitude and severity of juvenile crime in our state and our nation. We then attempted to increase our understanding of the Arizona juvenile justice system by focusing our attention on the missions and objectives of the primary stakeholders and their roles in the continuum of care.
Administrative Offices of the Court, Juvenile Justice Services Division (AOC/JJSD or A OC)
The AOCIJJSD provides administrative support and oversight for the county juvenile justice systems in the following programs.
-
--
Section 3 Juvenile Justice Structure And Stakeholders
Page 3 6
-
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
DRAFT
Prevention, through the Juvenile Crime Reduction Fund, Intervention, which includes:
Diversion, Standard Probation, Intensive Probation, and Treatment.
The AOCIJJSD serves as the coordinating agency for policy, service contracts and payments to Treatment Providers that comprise the continuum of treatment services authorized or ordered by the Juvenile Courts. A more in-depth discussion of those programs and activities can be found in Section 5 of this report. The AOCIJJSD is also responsible for management of the state appropriations allocated to fund these treatment and probation efforts. AOCIJJSD collaborates with the counties to establish and monitor County budgets for these services. In addition, AOCIJJSD and the counties work together to monitor the performance of Treatment Providers and Juvenile Probation Officers. The AOCIJJSD total expenditures for the year ended June 30, 1997, were approximately $43 million funded with state appropriations. These expenditures, displayed in Exhibit 35 below, were used to fund the following breakout of program costs.
Exhibit 3-5 AOCIJJSD Costs by Program Total Expenditures $43M Year Ended June 30,1997
-
.
AOC Administration (Est.)
-
20./. oAOC Family Counseling
-
BAOC Intensive Probation - Juvenile (intensive) oAOC - Juvenile Probation State Aid (regular)
.
AOC - Juvenile Treatment Services (sewices)
These f h d s were used to provide services to approximately 50,210 children in the juvenile justice system for state appropriated dollars administered by AOCIJJSD and the
Section 3 Juvenile Justice Structure And Stakeholders Page 3 7
-
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
DRAFT
15 counties. The average annual costs and comparative national averages for the major components of the AOCIJJSD structure are summarized below.
Arizona Averaae
Standard Probation Intensive Probation Treatment $1,247 $4,900 $ 453
National Averane
$ 8 0 3 to $2,555 $2,719 to $5,913 Not Available
Due to the variability of levels of treatment and the accounting for treatment-related costs throughout the nation, we were unable to obtain reliable and comparable national averages. A more detailed discussion of these cost components of the AOCIJJSD will be provided in Section 4 of this report. In addition, the results of our interviews, analysis conducted on and operations review of AOC is included in Appendix A of this report.
Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections (ADJC)
The ADJC is responsible for the development, implementation and management of the following programs. Secure Care in a State Institution, including: Permanent Secure Facilities, including:
Adobe Mountain, Black Canyon, Catalina Mountain, and Encanto;
Rincon Temporary Diagnostic Unit; and Boot Camp. Post-Secure Care (often referred to as Aftercare), including:
Conditional Liberty, Graduated Continuum of Care, and Other wraparound services to ensure appropriate transition into the community.
The ADJC directly provides the majority of these services with its own employees and facilities. However, private providers also administer some treatment programs in the Post-Secure Care component of the continuum. The ADJC is responsible for contractual agreements, payments and oversight of these providers. In analyzing AOC and ADJC operations, we identified a best practice that is worthy of note and is highlighted in ABP 3.1 below.
Section 3 Juvenile Justice Structure And Stakeholders
Page 3 - 8
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
DRAFT
ABP -3.1 Interagency Collaboration on Use of Treatment Provider Contracts It should be noted that ADJC and AOC have entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement that allows them to use each other's Treatment Providers. This type of arrangement reduces duplication of effort in that only one agency has to perform monitoring of the Treatment Provider. This type of collaborative effort is more efficient for the state agencies and for the Treatment Providers. While care must be taken to ensure that the administrative load for this type of relationship is shared, so that one agency is not overburdened, this is a wonderful example of collaboration and efficiency on the part of both agencies and on behalf of the Treatment Providers. A more in-depth discussion of the ADJC programs and activities can be found in Sections 6 and 7, while the results of our review of the agencies operations and other analysis in included in Appendix B of this report. The ADJC total expenditures, for the year ended June 30, 1997, were approximately $53 million funded mostly by state appropriations. These expenditures were used to fund the following breakout of program costs, depicted in Exhibit 3-6 below.
Exhibit 3-6
Department of Juvenile Corrections Total Ependitures $53 Million Year Ended June 30,1997 Source: WC Internal Financial Statements
-
ADJC Administration ADJC Education
50%
ADJC C o m n i t y Care ADJC Boot Camp
m ADJC Other Secure Care
During fiscal year 1997, the ADJC supervised approximately 700 youth on any given day in Secure Care. The average length of incarceration is approximately 21 1 days for each juvenile with the annual cost of a placement in a State Institution averaging $47,579. This information compares to a national average of approximately 294 days per juvenile at an annual cost of $42,707.
Section 3 Juvenile Justice Structure And Stakeholders
Page 3 - 9
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
DMFT
In addition, ADJC serves approximately 2,500 youth annually in Post-Secure Care on Conditional Liberty at an average annual cost of $6,247 per juvenile, which includes the cost of oversight and treatment services provided to the youth (labeled as Community Care, above). The average length of time a youth spends in the Conditional Liberty Program is approximately 200 days. Due to variability in levels of treatment and related costs on a national basis, we were not able to obtain a reliable national figure for comparative purposes. However, we did note that the annual Conditional Liberty costs were approximately 17% higher than the annual combined costs of Intensive Probation and Treatment services per juvenile at AOCIJJSD of $5,353. This difference appears reasonable given the severity differences in the individuals being served. County Superior Court Juvenile Probation Departments (County Probation Departments) In Arizona, County Probation Departments operate under the authority of the Presiding Judge of the Juvenile Court of each county and is a Division of the Arizona Superior Court. Each presiding Judge has the authority to appoint the Chief Juvenile Probation Officer, who supervises the County Probation Department. The County Probation Departments have the responsibility to provide the following types of general services to youth citizens of the county who have been adjudicated as delinquent or diverted from prosecution:
Diversion, Court, Probation, Treatment, and Secure Care in a Detention Facility.
The County Attorney's Offices, Judges and Juvenile Probation Departments in each of the counties are responsible for all facets of the juvenile justice system directly affecting youth prior to commitment in a State Institution. Typically, an arrest is referred to a Probation Officer for assessment. The Probation Officer meets with the youth and his parents, if possible, and decides whether to refer the case to the County Attorney for prosecution, to warn and release the juvenile, or to enter the juvenile in a diversion program if the charges meet the criteria established by the County Attorney.
'
In the event that a case is referred to the County Attorney for prosecution, the Probation Officer prepares a report for the court detailing the youth's history, including prior offenses, if any exist, as well as a Disposition Report, describing recommendations for consequences. The County Attorneys then enter the process by making decisions on the charges to bring against a youth and filing a petition with the Court. The County Attorneys have significant influence on the lives of children entering the system. Under mandatory
-
Section 3 Juvenile Justice Structure And Stakeholders
Page 3 - 10
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting DRAFT
minimum sentencing, the decision on charges alone can make the difference between mandatory incarceration in a State Institution, referral to an adult court, or other less restrictive consequences. The County Attorney can also choose to divert youth from the court process, and enroll them in programs to help ensure that they will not be referred to the court again. Under Senate Bill 1446, County Attorneys have the opportunity to assume responsibility for development and maintenance of diversion programs from the County Probation Departments. At this time, the County Attorneys throughout the state have chosen to have the responsibility remain with the County Probation Departments, although several County Attorneys are becoming more involved in this facet of the continuum. Finally, the Juvenile Court Judges can significantly impact the youth in the system through their adjudications. The Judge is responsible for reviewing the petition filed by the County Attorney and the related documents filed by the Probation Officer and making a final determination on the appropriate consequences for the youth. The Judge often has very limited time to review the petition and other reports, and often relies on the recommendations and expertise of the County Attorney and the Probation Officer, so it is critical that they work together to propose the most effective consequences for the juvenile. We noted a positive and collaborative working relationship between the County Attorneys and the Probation Officers in each of the counties. In some counties, Superior Court Judges are rotated to cover the Juvenile C o w docket, while others have Judges who preside only over juvenile offenses. We found that the Judges whose focus was specifically on juveniles tended to be more engaged and cognizant of the needs and appropriate consequences of the youth that came before them. These Judges often recommend and assist with developing innovative consequences for youth to discourage them from future delinquent activity. We also found examples of Judges attempting to hold parents accountable for the actions of their children. Though, we did not witness consequences being consistently and effectively administered to parents who did not comply with the Courts' mandates. Each County Probation Department administers these programs using an allocation of state appropriations budgeted through AOCIJJSD in combination with its County General Funds. Some counties also receive other limited funds, such as special grants to fundspecific programs. Overall, the County Probation Departments fund approximately $23 million, or roughly 27%, of the juvenile justice costs throughout the state. Expenditure levels and funding sources, as well as approximate costs per juvenile, for each County Probation Department are included in Appendix B of this report.
Stakeholder Site Visits
With the major stakeholders included in the scope of this report having a combined spending level of more that $132 million financed by the public, we felt it necessary to perform an on-site review of each to better understand their operations and assess the
Section 3 Juvenile Justice Structure And Stakeholders
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
DRAFT
impacts of these operations on the youth being served by the Arizona juvenile justice system. As noted in Section 2 of this report, we conducted the following site visits: AOCIJJSD, ADJC, Sixteen County Juvenile Court Judges, Each of the fifteen County Probation Departments, Thirteen of the fifteen County Attorneys, and Thirty-nine major Treatment Providers (whose costs are included in the expenditures depicted in the Exhibits 3-1 and 3-6 above). For each of these entities, Deloitte Consulting performed a detailed analysis of operations to compare the current environment to the desired environment, as defined in Interim deliverables for this project and approved in June 1998. The major areas of operation assessed included the following:
Organization and Management, Program Mission and Objectives, Program Design and Service Delivery, Program Financing and Management, Staff and Resource Allocation, Performance Management, Information Systems, and Coordination and Collaboration with Other Agencies
- Public and Private.
Conclusion
Appendix B of this report provides certain demographic and funding information for each
of the entities, the results of the operational analyses and the resultant issues for each of the agencies and counties. In addition, a summary analysis of the provider assessments is included to describe the overall operating conditions and issues for all of the participating providers. Performance for each entity was measured by the Desired Conditions of Operations Matrix (DCOW which is included for review in each entity's summary. Information about each of the programs and operating components of the continuum of care of the Arizona juvenile justice system, whether provided by the public entities or private providers, is described in detail in Sections 4 through 7 of this report. We will start in Section 4 with a discussion of Prevention in Arizona.
Section 3 Juvenile Justice Structure And Stakeholders
Page 3 - 12
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
DRAFT
Section 4
Prevention
Draft
Table of Contents
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
DRAFT
Prevenfion
Juvenile Crime Prevention
Effective Prevention programs are essential in keeping children and youth out of the juvenile justice system. Although the scope of this project does not include a detailed analysis of the Prevention efforts in the state of Arizona, Prevention is a significant component of the Juvenile Justice Service Continuum. As such, these programs can influence the type and number of youth served by other components of the service continuum. Accordingly, Prevention programs warrant mention and a high-level analysis in an evaluation of this nature. General information related to the current public funding and program efforts of juvenile crime prevention is included in this section, along with some general findings and recommendations presented for consideration. First, it is important to provide a definition of Prevention, as it is often misunderstood. In the context of juvenile crime, Prevention collectively refers to all efforts to avert delinquent behavior. Prevention efforts identify the factors contributing to delinquent behavior and then develop "protective factors" to address and ameliorate those factors. Protective factors are qualities or conditions that moderate a juvenile's exposure to risk.' According to the definitions provided above, juvenile crime Prevention programs focus on involving youths in activities that provide positive influences in their lives and keep them from engaging in delinquent behavior. Prevention programs work by developing positive life skills, minimizing risk factors, offering support and direction to the families and youth that participate, or simply by occupying the youth's time with activities that keep them out of trouble. Patterns of juvenile delinquent behavior show that the greatest time for delinquent activities are in the hours just after school ends. A 1992 study conducted by the Carnegie Foundation determined that children spend 60 percent of their non-sleeping time occupied by school, homework, chores, meals or employment. Many juveniles spend the remaining 40 percent of their time alone or with peers but without adult supervision1. Children in low-income families are more likely than others to be home alone for three or more hours each day1. There have been many studies focusing on the causes and risk factors for juvenile delinquency. Experts believe that there are many circumstances in a child's life that may lead him down the path of delinquency, a few examples of these conditions include: Abuse or neglect by family members or others; Peer groups consisting of delinquent juveniles; Ready access to drugs or guns; Teen pregnancy; Familial history of incarceration; and Unsafe and/or ineffective schools.
Section 4
Prevention
Page 4 1
-
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
DRAFT The presence of one or more of these factors in a young person's life may lead him off the path of normal adolescent development and into the justice system as a delinquent juvenile. Experts in the area of Juvenile crime agree that Prevention strategies are critical to help reduce these risk factors and provide youths with the opportunity to flourish and become productive members of society.
Prevention in Arizona
In Arizona, Primary Prevention programs are designed to keep children from entering the juvenile justice system. Other Secondary Prevention programs in Arizona are designed to keep juvenile delinquents that have previously received court-referred services from reentering the juvenile justice system. Both of these Prevention programs utilize: Direct methods such as one-on-one or group educational programs which serve to inform kids of the consequences of delinquent behavior and ways in which to make proper and knowledgeable choices when faced with negative influences; and Indirect methods that offer fun and entertaining activities such as after school programs, Grad Nights and recreational activities to occupy youth's idle time with positive and influential interactions. Prevention programs often also assist parents in improving parenting and recognizing warning signs. The key to success for these programs lies in early identification of at-risk behaviors with immediate intervention to steer children away from delinquent activities and keep them on the path to successful education and development.
Key Stakeholders in Prevention
Children are influenced by a number of people in their lives. Many of these people become key participants in the Prevention effort. The direct participants in juvenile crime Prevention can be broken down into four basic areas that include; families, schools, communities and juveniles themselves. Examples of influential participants include the following:
Grandparents Aunts and Uncles Siblings
Businesses and Employers Universities or Colleges Non-Profit Agencies
Athletic Teams
The players listed above all have the potential for direct and meaningful contact with juveniles in their communities or in their homes, and may have either positive or negative influences on a child's life, depending on the circumstances of the relationship. The power of Prevention resides in the coordinated effort of these players to build a positive web of influence around at-risk youth.
Section 4
Prevention
Page 4 - 2
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
DRAFT
There is also a fifth participant group that may not have direct contact with at-risk youths, but does have the potential to positively impact children and their families. This group includes the policy makers who impact the children of Arizona. Federal, state and local policy makers play an integral role in prioritizing Prevention activities and facilitating the development and maintenance of Prevention programs in Arizona.
Funding and Costs
Research has placed the cost of juvenile incarceration nationally at between $34,000 and $64,000' per year per juvenile. The cost of a young adult's (i.e., 18 to 23 years of age) criminal career through adulthood has been estimated to be as much as $1.1 million dollars'. In contrast, Prevention programs, in contrast, cost thousands less per year for each juvenile. In fact, a study conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice, Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention found one delinquency Prevention program in California was able to produce a direct cost saving of $1.40 for every $1.OO spent in law enforcement and juvenile justice resources1. Other similar examples of the cost-effectiveness of investment in Prevention from across the nation are highlighted below.
The Federal Job Corps Program helps at-risk youth overcome barriers to employment. A study found that every dollar invested in Job Corps returned $1.46 to society through decreased income maintenance payments, reductions in costs of incarceration and taxes paid by former Job Corps students. Youth Education And Employment Program helps youth build confident, self-reliant lives through a flexible, comprehensive program of education, life/pre-employment skills training,job placement, and counseling. The program has placed 75% of its participants in unsubsidized employment. Straight Talk About Risks comprehensive school program is designed to prevent gunshot injuries and deaths among children and teens by teaching students the protective skills needed to avoid threatening situations involving firearms. In the Dade County (Florida) Public Schools program, there was a 30% decrease in gun injuries and deaths among school-aged youth as a result of this program. Through education, awareness, mediation and police involvement, the Youth Gang Unit School Safety Program in Ohio attempts to help youth steer away from gang activity and other violent activities. According to police reports, the program's proactive efforts contributed to a 39% reduction in school gang-related incidents in the 1992-93 school year. The mission of the Gang Prevention/lntervention Coalition in Washington, D.C. is to reduce the rate of youth violence by providing positive opportunities for youth in several community centers. Through education and information, prevention and intervention activities, and mentor guidance, youth violence has decreased by 80% over three years in the six neighborhoods where the Coalition operates.
Section 4
Prevention
Page 4 3
-
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
DRAFT
A Columbia University study found that public housing projects containing Boys and Girls Clubs have crime rates 13% lower than projects without them. Prevalence of drug activity is 22% lower and crack cocaine presence is 25% lower in projects with a Club. Aimed at high-risk youth, the Massachusetts Prevention Club acts as a physical sanctuary from the streets and serving as an extended family providing positive role models on a daily basis. Researchers from Rutgers University tracked youths in the program and found a reduced rate of school dropout and a decreased number of arrests. When the police were brought in to serve as mentors to the youth, crime declined in the target area by over 20%.
Public Housing residents in Ohio responded to a crime epidemic by launching late night and weekend supervised recreation activities. In the Winton Hills program's first thirteen weeks, reported crime dropped by 24%. Project Head Start, a well known Prevention program, is designed to help children of low income families. It focuses on the development of the child's intellect, fosters emotional and social development, provides health and nutritional services, and involves parents and the community in these efforts. An evaluation of I ,500 Head Start programs found improvement in school performance, increases in self-esteem and motivation, lowered school absenteeism, and improvement in the child's health and nutrition.
The Michigan High/Scope Perry Preschool program is based on the Head Start model. According to the latest findings of the High/Scope Educational Research Foundation, adults who were born into poverty and attended a high-quality, active learning preschool program at ages three and four have half as many criminal arrests, higher earnings and property wealth, and greater commitment to marriage. Over the participants' lifetimes, the public receives an estimated $7.16 return for every dollar. Currently, Project Head Start reaches only 35% of eligible children. The chart on the following page illustrates the different outcomes for persons involved in this program.
Section 4
Prevention
Page 4 - 4
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
DRAFT
HighlScope Perry Preschool Study: Major Findings at Age 27 Project Head Start
Program N o Prog~
5 or More Arrests
$2000+
EarningsIMo.
Homeowner Receive Social High School Services Graduates
While we could find no comparable information to measure the impact of Prevention programs in Arizona, it is our strong belief that development of and provision of adequate and consistent funding for Prevention programs can lead to direct cost savings for the juvenile justice system, and even the broader criminal justice system, in Arizona. The most expensive way to deal with children and violence is to wait for children to become criminals. Instead of spending between $34,000 and $64,000 per year per juvenile to put them in Secure Care in a State Institution, Arizona should focus funding and efforts on keeping children from committing delinquent acts in the first place. Funding for Prevention programs-in Arizona comes from a wide variety of sources including:
Federal block and incentive grants; Allocated funds from the Governor's Division for Children (GDFC); Juvenile Crime Reduction Fund (JCRF) monies through the Administrative Offices of the Court (AOC); Tobacco Tax Funds; Juvenile Accountability Block Grants; State appropriations and federal matching funds from various state and local agencies-; County funds; City funds; and Donations from non-profit agencies, foundations and businesses.
The accurate level of statewide investment in Prevention is hard to quantify because of the number of unknown actual and volunteer resources invested at all levels of government and the community. When considering the risk factors for children described previously, it becomes apparent that Prevention efforts can be far-reaching, ranging from efforts to prevent child abuse, neglect and teen pregnancy, to campaigns against alcohol, drug and tobacco use, to programs designed to keep kids in school.
Section 4
Prevention
Page 4 5
-
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
DRAFT
This report does not attempt to quantify the total dollars spent on these services for children and their families. However, Exhibit 4-1 below provides examples of approximate spending or funding levels provided for in Arizona for certain publicly funded Prevention efforts2.
Exhibit 4-1
In summary, for those programs where information was available, the total public financing expended on Prevention in Arizona in fiscal year 1997 was approximately $24.3 million. We believe this figure is actually higher but not determinable due to a lack of overall tracking and coordination. National averages of Prevention funding from other states were not available for comparative purposes. While several national studies have been attempted, for some of the same reasons funding levels could not always be obtained in Arizona, none have been able to accommodate the variances in the many state and local systems in the country to provide meaningful and comparable data. The most important information to be taken from a general discussion of funding of Prevention programs is the effect these dollars have on the broad-based goal of deterring juvenile delinquency. Beyond the fact that deterring juvenile crime will reduce the costs to the criminal justice system, public monies tend to have a "multiplier effect", as the public dollars, if properly utilized, tend to stimulate increased community effort and investment. Through community partnerships and volunteerism that can evolve from publicly funded programs, the actual public dollars spent often become just a small part of the overall community investment. Efforts involving community and business volunteers, in conjunction with families, can have a profound impact on children's lives.
Section 4
Prevention
Page 4 - 6
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
DRAFT
A wonderful example of this occurring in Arizona is the use of Juvenile Crime Reduction Fund monies to "jump start" community involved Prevention programs. This Prevention program is highlighted below as a Best Practice, ABP 1.
-
ABP- I
Juvenile Crime Reduction Fund (JCRF) The Juvenile Crime Reduction Fund, overseen by the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), was established in 1984 to assist existing Prevention efforts and programs and to help establish new Prevention programs in the state of Arizona. This fund provides "seed money" to get these programs out of the planning phase and into the communities. The JCRF receives its funding from the Criminal Justice Enhancement Fund (CJEF), as outlined in Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) 41-2401(d)5, entitling the JCRF to 9.35% of the total CJEF fund for the fiscal year. CJEF receives its funding through fines, forfeitures and other collected court-related fees pursuant to A.R.S. 12-116.0 1. JCRF shares this pool of funding dollars with fifteen other entities.
Applications for JCRF funding are sent out each year to measure the progress of continuing Prevention programs and to determine the programs' grant funding for the following fiscal year. Continuing programs are evaluated based on their budgetary and program goals for the upcoming year, and how they performed against their budgetary and program goals fiom the previous year. A team of JCRF Specialists reviews the completed applications and then determines the level of funding for the upcoming year. The Prevention programs requesting JCRF funding are actively involved in this process and have the opportunity to receive assistance fiom AOC in adjusting their programs to meet the requirements or standards of the JCRF Review Committee. All programs that receive JCRF funding must submit mid-year progress reports to measure progress in reaching goals previously established in their application for JCRF funding. These progress reports are reviewed and assessed by the JCRF Review Committee to determine if the program is meeting its target in terms of juveniles served and budget expended. While these progress reports help in determining the advancement and growth of the funded Prevention programs, they do not measure the outcomes for juveniles served by these programs. Programs must perform outcome measures independently if they hope to determine the outcomes of their services. New programs may apply for JCRF fhding by submitting an application including their proposed budget, program and staffing plans and details about the target population and needs the program intends to -fill. Collectively, the reviewed and approved applications for funding grants developed by the JCRF funding reviewers form the overall JCRF funding packet which outlines how the total JCRF funding should be apportioned for the year. This packet is reviewed and approved by the AOCIJuvenile Justice Services Division (JJSD) Director and the Chief Justice.
I
Section 4
Prevention
Page 4 7
-
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
DRAFT ABP
- I (Continued)
For new Prevention programs approved for JCRF funding, the award is typically offered as a three-year declining grant. During the JCRF funding period, providers are encouraged to locate and assisted in obtaining other permanent funding sources for long-term success. Examples of Prevention programs currently receiving JCRF funding in the state of Arizona are illustrated in the table below.
Accept the Challenge in Maricopa County Act NOW Truancy Program in Pirna County Alternative to Suspension in Pirna County Big Brothers & Big Sisters in Navajo County Center for Juvenile Alternatives in Yavapai County Creative Alternatives for Youth in Maricopa County Desert Venture 1998 in Pirna County Family-BasedAltematives/Shelter in Coconino County Gang Mediation Project in Pinal County
KIDS LAW in Pima County Law for Kids Website in Arizona Maximizing My Potential in Maricopa County Phoenix Violence Prevention Initiative in Maricopa County Project LEARN in Arizona Project Health Choices in Pirna County Project SOAR in Maricopa County Project SOAR in Pirna County Summer P.A. Y. in Maricopa County Youth & Family Resource Project in Arizona
Current Programs and Strategies in Arizona
Prevention programs in Arizona come in many shapes and sizes and may include one or many of the following components:
Classes; Sports and recreation; Youth employment; Conflict intervention and resolution; Youth clubs; Mentoring; Advertising campaigns;-and Parental support groups.
There are a wide variety of Prevention programs at work in Arizona. Each of the fifteen counties in Arizona has promising Prevention programs, created to serve diverse populations throughout the state. These programs seek to reduce juvenile criminal
Section 4 Prevention
Page 4 8
-
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
DRAFT
involvement by actively engaging youths in activities that work directly or indirectly to build positive social skills and create awareness of the consequences of delinquent behavior.
Exhibit 4-2 below provides a representative sample of Prevention programs overseen by County Probation Departments. These programs are made available to children throughout the rural and urban areas of Arizona. Although these programs individually contribute to delinquency prevention in the counties in which they exist, little measurable outcome data was available for their level of success.
Exhibit 4-2
In addition to the efforts of the counties' efforts, the Governor's Division for Children (GDFC), in partnership with the Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission (AJJC), offers a wide variety of services for Arizona's children. In fact, the "mission of the GDFC is to promote and advance the strength and well-being of Arizona's children and families." The goal of GDFC is to provide a single strong voice for children from within the executive branch of state government. The GDFC is also charged with serving as the interagency coordinator for all children, youth and family programs within the ~tate."~
Section 4
Prevention
Page 4 - 9
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
DRAFT The Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission (AJJC) is a State Advisory Group, recently reestablished by the Governor. It is tasked with the following juvenile justice system responsibilities: Participate in the development of the State Plan (for federal funding); Advise the Governor and the Legislature on juvenile justice issues; Review and comment on grant proposals; and Monitor programs. The AJJC has a membership of between 15 and 34 members with the following characteristics: Twenty percent of the members must be under age 24; Three members who have been or shall currently be under the jurisdiction of the juvenile justice system; and
A majority of the members shall not be full-time government employees (including the Chairperson).
The GDFC and AJJC currently collaborate to sponsor and fund Prevention programs (and other services) across the state including:
Before and after school programs; Summer youth programs; Youth leadership programs and projects; Coordinated statewide planning for children and families; Technical assistance, training and workshops; and Early childhood programs.
Programs and partnerships are facilitated by these entities through Title I1 and Title V Federal grants. The two tables on the following page include examples of these programs and partnerships.
Section 4
Prevention
Page 4 - 10
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
DRAFT
Programs Community Excellence ProjectMulticultural EffectivenessTraining (MET) Open-Inn, Inc.-Crisis / Shelter Services St. Anthony of Padua Catholic Church White Mountain Apache Tribe Kyrene School District-Summer Academy Phoenix Indian Center-Osborn Middle School Learning Circle Project City of Tucson, Parks and Recreation Big Brothers & Big Sisters of YumaProject Developing Educational & Vocational Opportunities to Excel (DEVOTE) Big Brothers & Big Sisters of NortheasternArizona
Development-Royal Palm Outreach Project Arizona's Children AssociationAdolescent Resource Center Lake Havasu Social Services Parents Anonymous of Arizona, Inc. Westwood Community Association Westmar~Truancy Prevention Partnership Open-Inn, Inc.-Alternative Center for Family-Based Services San Carlos Apache Tribe-Apache Youth Arts Program Native American Community Health Center, Inc.-Adolescent Care and Cultural Enhancement (ACCE) Red Road Project Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community-The Young River Peoples Youth Council
Pima County of Governments - Center for Juvenile Alternatives Town of Queen Creek-Sports ProgramsNouth EmploymentISelf Esteem Program Mohave County Attorney's Office-Boys and Girls Clubs of the Colorado RiverComprehensive Teen Program City of Tempe-Intensive Parent and Families Support Services City of Casa Grande-Plans for a branch of the Boys & Girls Club
Pinal County Parks, Recreation & Fairgrounds City of Scottsdale in partnership with New Foundation, LINKS and Scottsdale Police Department Pima County Attorney's Oftice-Truancy Intervention Program Support Yuma County Juvenile Court in partnership with the Yuma County Library, Arizona Children's Home Association, and the Boys and Girls Club of Yuma
Beginning in August, 1998, the GDFC and AJJS began the process of more effectively coordinating programs by soliciting services that cross four different funding sources, including those described above. The intent of this approach is to help communities develop coordinated and comprehensive programs without the barriers of individual funding source limitations and focus. We believe this is an excellent step in encouraging coordination and collaboration at the community level. As illustrated above there are a number programs at work in Arizona striving to minimize the occurrences of juvenile crime. A detailed description of these programs may be obtained by contacting the individual counties' juvenile court personnel who oversee these programs, or the Governor's Division for Children.
Section 4 Prevention
Page 4 - 11
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
Object Description
| Rating | |
| TITLE | Juvenile justice evaluation final report / submitted to Arizona Juvenile Justice Committee / draft submittal |
| CREATOR | Deloitte Consulting |
| SUBJECT | Juvenile justice, Administration of--Arizona; Juvenile delinquents--Arizona; Arizona. Legislature. Juvenile Justice Committee; |
| Browse Topic |
Crime and violence Government and politics |
| DESCRIPTION | This title contains one or more publications. |
| Language | English |
| Publisher | Deloitte Consulting |
| Material Collection |
State Documents Legislative Study Committee Reports |
| Source Identifier | LG 1.2:J 88 D 35/D |
| Location | 44671396 |
| REPOSITORY | Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records--Law and Research Library. |
Description
| TITLE | Juvenile justice evaluation final report draft submiittal / November 19, 1998 Volume 1 |
| DESCRIPTION | 240 pages (PDF version) File size: 18570.861 KB. |
| TYPE | Text |
| Material Collection |
House Received Reports |
| Acquisition Note | Publication or link to publication sent to reports@lib.az.us |
| RIGHTS MANAGEMENT | Copyright to this resource is held by the creating agency and is provided here for educational purposes only. It may not be downloaded, reproduced or distributed in any format without written permission of the creating agency. Any attempt to circumvent the access controls placed on this file is a violation of United States and international copyright laws, and is subject to criminal prosecution. |
| DATE ORIGINAL | 1998-11-19 |
| Time Period |
1990s (1990-1999) |
| ORIGINAL FORMAT | Paper |
| Source Identifier | LG 1.2:J 88 D 35/D/ VOL. 1 |
| DIGITAL IDENTIFIER | RMDHOUSE_AZJJEFR_VOL 1__NOV_19_1998.pdf |
| DIGITAL FORMAT | PDF (Portable Document Format) |
| DIGITIZATION SPECIFICATIONS | Digitized into PDF form through scanning at the Records Management Division, Arizona State Library. |
| REPOSITORY | Arizona State Library. Archives and Public Records--Law and Research Library. |
| File Size | 18570.861 KB |
| Full Text | Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report Submitted To Arizona Juvenile Justice Committee DRAFT Submittal November 19,1998 Volume 1 Deloitte &ToucheConsulting Group Deloitte & Touche Consulting Group LLC Suite 200 2335 American River Drive Sacramento, California 95825-7065 Telephone: (916)565-3100 November 20,1998 Arizona State Legislature Juvenile Justice Committee 1700 W. Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Dear Co-Chairmen and Committee Members: We are pleased to present the draft copy of the Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Report for your review. This draft report presents our findings y d recommendations as they relate to the major agencies involved in the juvenile justice system as well as the system as a whole. The draft report is ordered as follows: Volume 1 Executive Summary Introduction Section 1 Section 2 Methodology Section 3 Juvenile Justice System Structure and Stakeholders Section 4 Prevention Section 5 Intentention Section 6 Secure Care Section 7 Post-Secure Care Section 8 Core Findings and Recommendations Volume 2 Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Providers Visited Site Visit Summaries Recidivism Analysis Summaries As this is a draft report, we would like to actively solicit your input on this draft and incorporate your feedback in the final report. Members of our project team will be calling committee members on Tuesday, November 24' to answer questions and solicit your feedback. The final report will be presented to the Committee on Monday, November 3oth. Thank you for the opportunity to serve you on this important project. If you have any questions regarding the draft report, please call Bobbie Wilbur at (916) 565-3147 or Sean Fox at (916) 565-3128. Sincerely, Deloitte Consulting Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report Deloitte Consulting DRAFT Table af Contents Volume 1 Executive Summary Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4 Section 5 Section 6 Section 7 Section 8 Page e5-1 Introduction Methodology Juvenile Justice System Structure and Stakeholders Prevention Inten/ention Secure Care Post-Secure Care Core Findings and Recommendations 8-1 4-1 - -- Volume 2 Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Page Providers Visited Site Visit Summaries Recidivism Analysis Summaries C-I Table of Contents Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report Deloitte Consulting DRAFT Executive Summary This report includes the findings and recommendations developed during the evaluation of the Arizona juvenile justice system. The review encompassed the following two areas: The performance of all agencies and the programs administered by those agencies that meet the statutory requirements for the scope of the study, with a particular emphasis on outcomes ,and The cost effectiveness of the services of all agencies that meet the statutory requirements for the scope of this study. This Executive Summary provides a brief overview of the methodology we employed, an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses in the management and organizational structures of the Arizona juvenile justice system, and associated recommendations for improving the management of the delivery of juvenile justice services in Arizona. We believe the methodology employed on this review offers Arizona an efficient and effective approach to identifying the outcomes and cost effectiveness of its juvenile justice programs. At the start of the project we put forth a set of desired conditions that we have developed from our extensive experience in reviewing and analyzing juvenile justice systems. These desired conditions relate to organizational structure, management and administrative practices, systems of care and community integration. Using the desired conditions, tailored to Arizona, as our benchmark, we conducted our assessment of the Arizona juvenile justice system with: A review of relevant Arizona legislation; Individual interviews with key Arizona judicial, legislative and executive branch leaders; Individual interviews with key stakeholders within the juvenile justice system; Individual interviews with service providers; Case file reviews; Site visits to: All ADJC Institutions, Three ADJC Parole offices, All county Probation Departments, Other county officials, and Thirty-nine service providers; Executive Summary Page ES 1 - Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report Deloitte Consulting DRAFT Focus groups involving representatives of the key leaders and stakeholders in the Arizona juvenile justice system; and Completion and presentation of the final report. An Overview of Arizona's Juvenile Justice System Many entities have a role in influencing and serving children and youth that have been adjudicated as delinquent or diverted from delinquency and prosecution in Arizona. A simplified representation of the service continuum, Exhibit ES-1 identifies the key stakeholders. Exhibit ES-I There are really two stakeholders that have responsibility for (or "own") a juvenile regardless of whether the juvenile is, or is not, in the juvenile justice continuum. These two stakeholders are the juvenile's: Family, and Community. Programs and services for youth involved in the juvenile justice system are provided and monitored primarily through the Administrative Offices of the Court, Juvenile Justice Services Division (AOCIJJSD); Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections (ADJC); the fifteen County Superior Court Juvenile Probation Departments. The other major stakeholders in the system are law enforcement agencies, County Attorneys, Juvenile Court Judges, treatment providers, the Arizona Department of Education, the Arizona Department of Economic Security (ADES), and the Arizona Department of Health Services, Behavioral Health Services (ADHSBHS). The major agencies in the system all operate on different computer systems and uniquely identify the youth or family. As a result, significant effort is required to try to match Executive Summary Page ES - 2 Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report Deloitte Consulting DRAFT youth fiom the juvenile justice system to ADE, ADES or ADHSIBHS. The bottom line is, the state of Arizona has no efficient or effective way to track juveniles across state systems. It is important to note that only 7.5 % of the total juvenile population in Arizona received a referral to Juvenile Court during fiscal year 1997. Of those referred, 29% were brought into the system, warned and released; and another 34% were diverted fiom prosecution through programs such as Teen Court and unpaid community work. In other words, 63% of the juveniles entering the system were not prosecuted for a crime by the County Attorneys. Of the remaining juveniles who were charged with a crime, 40% were dismissed or given a penalty. The remaining youth, approximately 12,800 (less than 2% of the total Arizona juvenile population), were on Standard or Intensive Probation or in Secure Care, and are the focus of most of the attention and resources of the juvenile justice system. AOCIJJSD provides administrative support and oversight for the county juvenile justice systems in the following major programs: Diversion, Standard Probation, Intensive Probation, and Treatment Services. AOCIJJSD coordinates policy, service contracts and payments for private agencies providing services authorized by the Juvenile Courts. It is also responsible for management of the state appropriations allocated to fund these treatment and probation efforts. AOCIJJSD total expenditures for the year ending June 30, 1997 were approximately $43 million funded fiom state appropriations. These funds were used to serve over 50 thousand children and youth in the juvenile justice system, at an approximate per youth cost of $856. ADJC is responsible for the state Secure Care facilities including: Adobe Mountain, Black Mountain, Catalina Mountain, Encanto, Rincon Temporary Diagnostic Unit, and Boot Camp. ADJC is also responsible for Post-Secure Care, including Conditional Liberty and related programs and services, designed to insure appropriate transition back into the community. ADJC directly provides the majority of services with its own programs and employees, however, it contracts with private providers to administer some Treatment programs. Executive Summary Page ES 3 - Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report Deloitte Consulting DRAFT ADJC total expenditures for the year ending June 30, 1997 were approximately $53 million, funded mostly from state appropriations. At any point in time, ADJC supervises approximately 1,000 youth in Secure Care at an average annual cost of $26,500 per juvenile. ADJC supervises approximately 1,400 youth in Post-Secure Care at an average annual cost of approximately $10,200. These costs exclude administrative overhead , which represents 9% of total expenditures. In Arizona, County Probation Departments operate under the authority of the Presiding Judge of the Juvenile Court of each county and is a Division of the Arizona Superior Court. Each Presiding Judge has the authority to appoint the Chief Juvenile Probation Officer, who supervises the County Probation Department. County Superior Court Juvenile Probation Departments (County Probation Departments) provide the following services to youth that come into the juvenile system: Diversion, Court, Treatment, Short-term detention, and Probation services. The County Attorney's Offices, Judges and Juvenile Probation Departments in each county is responsible for all facets of the juvenile justice system directly affecting youth prior to commitment to a state juvenile correction institution. Overall, the County Probation Departments expend approximately $23 million, or roughly27% of statewide juvenile justice costs. Expenditure levels, funding sources and approximate cost per youth for each county are included in Appendix B of this report. For each of these entities, as well as for thirty-nine private service providers, we performed a detailed analysis of operations to compare the current conditions to the desired conditions defined earlier in this report. The results of this analysis are also included in Appendix B. Overall, AOCIJJSD collaborates and coordinates well with the other primary players in the Arizona juvenile justice system. The working relationship with ADJC appears to have improved over the last eight months with positive comments coming from both agencies. However, coordination and collaboration with other major state entities involved in the continuum of care for Arizona's vulnerable and at-risk children and youth such as ADES, ADHS, and ADE, are not as apparent. The major players in the Arizona juvenile justice system are, for the most part, doing their work well. However, there is no collective ownership of the entire delivery system for youth in this juvenile justice system. Until this happens, there will: Never be a completely effective, collaborative service continuum, Be no unified approach to performance and outcome measures, and Executive Summary Page ES 4 - Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report Deloitte Consulting DRAFT Be no overall capacity to determine what works and what does not work. Findings and Recommendations The components .ofthe Arizona juvenile justice continuum include: Prevention, Intervention, Secure Care, and Post-Secure Care Each component of the system is quite complex and, therefore, we have dedicated a section to each of these area which includes a description of the component, analysis of what type of juveniles are involved, a description of key stakeholders and funding and costs, performance and outcome measures and programs provided. We have not repeated detailed descriptions in this summary, but have summarized below the significant findings and recommendations that resulted from our evaluation of this system. Prevention Effective prevention programs are essential in keeping youth out of the juvenile justice system. Prevention has proven to be far more cost effective than incarceration. In a study conducted by the U.S. Justice Department, a delinquency prevention program in California was shown to produce a direct cost saving of $1.40 for every $1.OO spent in law enforcement and juvenile justice resources. Other similar examples of proven cost effective delinquency programs across the nation are highlighted in the Prevention section of this report. While we could find no comparable information to measure the impact of prevention programs in Arizona, it has been our experience and it is our conviction that funding for prevention programs can lead to direct cost savings for the juvenile justice system and for the broader criminal justice system. In Arizona, primary Prevention programs are designed to keep children from entering the juvenile justice system. Secondary prevention programs in Arizona are designed to keep juveniles previously involved in court referred services from re-entering the system. Prevention programs in Arizona, found in all 15 counties, come in many shapes and sizes, and may include one or more of the following components: Educational programs and classes, Sports and recreation, Youth employment, Conflict resolution, Youth clubs, Mentoring, Advertising campaigns, and Parental support groups. Executive Summary Page ES - 5 Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report Deloitte Consulting DRAFT Funding for Arizona delinquency prevention programs comes from a wide variety of federal, state and local funding sources, as well as donations from community organizations, foundations and businesses. While it is impossible to quantifjr the total dollars spent on prevention services for Arizona children and youth, the total public funding for prevention in Arizona for fiscal year 1997 was approximately $24 million. In our review of Arizona delinquency prevention efforts, we have compiled the following significant findings: There is no statewide agency or body charged with the coordination of prevention efforts. While there are many prevention programs and activities underway in Arizona, and while some appear to be effective, there is no entity responsible for: Identifjring what is working and what is not, by use of performance and outcome measures; Sharing what works with families, communities, volunteers, local government and service providers, so that they do not have to "reinvent the wheel"; Identifjring areas of unmet need; Identifying areas of duplication or overlap; Informing and educating other components and programs in the juvenile justice continuum in order to leverage other sources of prevention funding or in kind resources. Most Prevention programs appear to successfully engage youth in meaningful activities, but fall short in involving the child's family. Current research found in juvenile justice literature and current federal juvenile delinquency policy clearly points to the involvement of families as crucial in prevention efforts and youth violence reduction. The total number of youth being served in Arizona's Prevention programs is unknown. Based on the above findings, we offer the following significant recommendations: Because of the high cost of juvenile incarceration, and because of the proven savings of cost effective delinquency Prevention programs in other states, we believe Arizona should continue to fimd delinquency Prevention programs. Arizona delinquency Prevention programs should be re-focused to actively involve families in all aspects of services and activities. Prevention programs should be initiated and developed at the community level, while at the same time a statewide body should be authorized to provide support for community based delinquency Prevention efforts, and to coordinate Prevention activities statewide, with a specific emphasis on information sharing, the identification of unmet needs, and the prevention of duplication and overlap. Executive Summary Page ES - 6 Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report Deloitte Consulting DRAFT Arizona should require basic program data to be collected by all state b d e d Prevention programs, and develop outcome measures to assess the value of its Prevention programs. Intervention Unlike Prevention, Intervention focuses on delinquent behavior after the fact. Intervention includes those programs and services that deal with juveniles diverted from prosecution, or those juveniles adjudicated, but not committed to Secure Care in a State Institution. It involves a progression of less restrictive to more restrictive consequences. Those consequences are: Diversion, Probation, and Consequences which includes treatment. Probation Oficers supervise the youth who are in this component of the juvenile justice continuum. Overall, the impact of Intervention is positive in that over 60% of the youth arrested for the first time are not arrested again. Only a small proportion of the eligible Arizona youth population comes into contact with the Juvenile Court system. Diversion The goal of diversion is to direct youth away from formal court proceedings by assigning a set of consequences, that if successfully completed, result in avoidance of further court action. Diversion referrals come from the police, the schools and parents. Only youth who acknowledge responsibility for their actions are eligible. Chronic felony offenders, violent felony offenders and arrested for drunk driving are not eligible for Diversion. While the County Attorneys have been recently granted authority to run Diversion programs, they have allowed the County Probation Departments to continue to run these programs. In fiscal year 1997, over 17,000 youth were diverted in Arizona. Current law specifies the consequences that a Juvenile Probation Officer may apply to the diverted youth. The Probation Officer has the discretion authority to which and how many consequences will be assigned to the youth. The options include: Unpaid community service work, Counseling programs, Education programs to prevent further delinquency or address issues such as substance abuse, Non-residential rehabilitation programs, and Payment of victim restitution or monetary assessment. These services can be delivered by County Probation Departments, service providers, or non-paid community organizations. Executive Summary Page ES 7 - Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report Deloitte Consulting DRAFT Community-Based Alternative Programs (CBAPs) focus on involving youth's peers and community in assigning consequences for delinquent acts; these include Teen Court and Community Justice Committees. The Teen Court is successhl in Pima and Maricopa and has a low recidivism rate. Diversion is funded through the AOC and County General fund dollars. The AOC funding is on a capitated basis. The amount for fiscal 1998, the first year of this approach was $126 per juvenile, scheduled to increase to $198 for fiscal 1999. Counties incur costs in excess of the state capitated amount. Diversion is a less expensive alternative to Probation. County cost accounting is not standardized, and provider costs vary widely. In our review of Diversion, we have compiled the following significant findings: Diversion is a cost-effective program. The positive outcomes justify the investment. There is a need for more community programs. Senate Bill 1446 has resulted in increased collaboration among County Attorneys and County Probation Departments. There appears to be some confusion about the definitions of Diversion and Prevention. Based on our findings, we offer the following significant recommendations: Develop standardized performance and outcome measures for implementation across all Diversion programs. Increase family involvement in Diversion programs. Clarify definitions of diversion and prevention. Probation Probation in Arizona can be defined as conditional freedom granted by the Juvenile Court to an adjudicated juvenile on the condition of continued good behavior and regular reporting to a Probation Officer. This is the stage of the continuum where the resources expended are more significant and youth behavior is more challenging. The core tenets of Probation are: The belief that youth can make positive changes in their behavior, Protection of the community, Preservation of the best interest of the child and stability of the family unit, Fostering law-abiding behavior, and Restitution to victims and society for the wrongs committed against them. In the previous subsection, we discussed the role of Diversion which is to steer youth away from the court system. Probation is designed to accomplish the same goal for those Executive Summary Page ES - 8 Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report Deloitte Consulting DRAFT youth that have continued to commit delinquent offenses. Another difference between Diversion and Probation is the fact that youth on Probation have been adjudicated by the Juvenile Court. There are two types of Probation utilized in Arizona: Standard Probation, and Juvenile Intensive Probation (JIPS) for serious or high risk offenders. In addition to the regular supervision of the Probation Officer, consequences include: Restitution, Community Service, Victim Reconciliation, Drug Testing, and Treatment. Standard Probation is h d e d through State Aid for Probation and through the County General Fund on approximately 50150 basis. The total cost for fiscal 1997 was approximately $9 million. Our analysis resulted in an estimated average annual cost of $1,247 per juvenile in Standard Probation, and we estimate the daily cost per juvenile to be $3.42. These estimates do not include the cost of Treatment provided to these juveniles while on Probation. Arizona's average daily cost appear to be in the mid-range of Probation costs when compared to national averages that range between $2.20 and $7 a day for Standard Probation. Juvenile Intensive Probation Services is 100% funded by AOC. The fiscal year 1997 statewide-expended funds for JIPS were $9.3 million. The annualized average cost per youth in JIPS is estimated to be approximately $4,900. The estimated average daily costs per youth in JIPS is $13.42 in the state of Arizona. Nationally, the average daily cost per youth in intensive probation ranges from $7.45 to $16.20 a day. Arizona's average daily cost per youth for this program is well within the range of the national average. By policy, youth sentenced to JIPS are those who are at-risk of commitment to ADJC. Comparing the $13.42 average daily cost per youth for JIPS with the $130 average daily cost of Secure Care in a State Institution in Arizona results in an estimated $117 per day savings to keep the youth out of Secure Care. Given that the average length of stay in a State Institution in Arizona is approximately 188 days, this translates to a savings of over $21,000 dollars per juvenile who is supervised in the JIPS program as an alternative to commitment to a State Institution. With over 2,400 youth served in JIPS annually, the cost avoided by operating this program is $52 million per year. This program is clearly a cost-effective alternative to Secure Care in a State Institution. Currently AOCIJJSD is working in conjunction with the County Probation Departments to implement several performance and outcome measures starting with fiscal year 1999. Executive Summary Page ES 9 - Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report Deloitte Consulting DRAFT Based on our review of Probation, we have compiled the following significant findings: Probation is cost effective and JIPS is clearly a cost effective alternative to Secure Care in State Institutions. AOC and County Probation Departments have begun to develop performance and outcome measurements. There is limited information on the effectiveness of Treatment programs. There appears to be little family involvement in Probation Based on our findings, we offer the following significant recommendations: AOC and County Probation Departments must continue the development of performance and outcome measures. Performance and outcome measures should be developed specifically for treatment programs. AOC and County Probation should develop a specific plan designed to increase family involvement in the Probation process. AOC and County Probation, in conjunction with ADJC, must develop and support a single information system that contains accurate and meaningful data that will provide the basis for effective performance and outcomes measurement, and specifically allow for a comprehensive review of recidivism. Treatment The goal of treatment is to teach juveniles to be productive, law-abiding members of their community. Treatment can be anything from psychological assessments to secure residential care. Treatment offered through the juvenile justice system is actually a binding commitment that the juvenile must accept and complete in order to be released from the system. It is viewed as a consequence of delinquent behavior, and is utilized in every part of the juvenile justice continuum. Treatment services include behavior education classes, counseling, shelter care, and residential treatment options. These services are delivered by contract service providers. Through these outside agencies, County Probation Departments are able to purchase services to meet the specific needs of their populations. However, these services are limited due to geographic and financial considerations. In fiscal year 1997, AOC spent approximately 45% of its budget, or more than $19 million on Treatment services. These services are fbnded almost exclusively by state appropriations. The AOCIJJSD has made a significant effort to ensure that the youths in the juvenile system get effective, timely treatment in a culturally sensitive environment through contracts with private providers. AOC has developed an exemplary service procurement process. Executive Summary Page ES 10 - Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report Deloitte Consulting DRAFT Other than client satisfaction surveys, there is no capacity at this time to determine what works and what doesn't in treatment services, but AOC has recently begun to take action in this area. Based on our review of treatment, we have compiled the following significant findings: There is an overall shortage of substance abuse treatment programs in Arizona, and a shortage of residential treatment options in rural areas. Communication, coordination and collaboration among the participants in the in the delivery of treatment services needs improvement. High staff turnover rates among service providers are impacting the delivery of treatment services. Based on our findings, we offer the following significant recommendations: AOC and ADJC should work with Treatment providers to develop meaningful performance and outcome measures. AOC should develop a plan to expand substance abuse treatment services statewide and to develop residential treatment options in rural areas where are service gaps. AOC should take the lead in creating fiscal and program incentives to encourage the elimination of barriers to collaborative service delivery. Secure Care In Arizona, the Secure Care phase of the juvenile justice continuum includes county Detention facilities and State Institutions. Secure Care is defined in statute as "confinement in a facility that is completely surrounded by a locked and physically secure barrier with restricted ingress and egress". This is the most severe sentencing consequence available on the service continuum. Detention County detention is primarily reserved for more severe offenders as determined by the type of crime committed, the youth's court history and social history. Juveniles can be held in detention for a number of reasons including: Pre-adjudication, when juvenile is awaiting hearing; Consequence of a Probation or Parole violation; Sentencing option, imposed as part of the juvenile's disposition; and Post-disposition, when a juvenile may have to remain in Detention pending placement. Executive Summary Page ES - I I Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report Deloitte Consulting DRAFT The number and type of structured program activities and treatment services in county detention facilities vary by size and geographical location of each county. Generally the smaller more rural counties are limited in their programs to education, recreation and counseling as needed. The larger counties, such as Maricopa, are able to develop more specialized treatment programs for youth detained in their facilities. County detention operating costs are funded by each County's General Fund. Total Detention costs for all counties is not available because of lack of comparable accounting information across counties. This lack of data makes it difficult to determine the effectiveness of Detention programs as program costs are necessary to develop useful performance and outcome measures. In our review of Arizona detention facilities, we have compiled the following significant findings: Overall, county Detention facilities are adequate in available program activities. County Detention facilities are cost effective both in relation to other states' Detention costs and in relation to other Arizona out-of-home care costs. Maricopa and Pima use the Detention Risk Assessment Score Form (DRAF), a scoring instrument used to determine detention or release. The tool is only successfully used half the time, has limited capacity to predict recidivism, and in Maricopa County has a 50% override rate, as compared to the national standard of not over 15%. The county Detention system as a whole lacks standard performance and outcome measures. Based on our findings, we offer the following significant recommendations: With guidelines developed by the AOC, the counties should develop and maintain Detention performance and outcome measures. Counties should improve Detention risk assessment tools. Counties should enhance the consistency of detention accounting procedures. State Institutions The role of ADJC is to provide care, supervision, rehabilitation, treatment and education to those juveniles committed to its jurisdiction. ADJC are designed to enhance public protection by reducing the possibility of juveniles re-offending. As with other juvenile justice systems, Arizona's Secure Care is the most severe consequence in the juvenile justice continuum. The Arizona Secure Care institutions offer a variety of services including counseling, work experience and recreation, as well as: Executive Summary Page ES - 12 Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report Deloitte Consulting DRAFT Education for six hours per day, utilizing a newly established competency based curriculum, and providing each youth with an individual education plan; Vocational programs, with a focus on maintenance work, assistant teaching and culinary arts; and Mandated, daily group therapy sessions. In fiscal year 1997, ADJC reported an average daily Secure Care cost of $130 per juvenile. Catalina Mountain is the highest at $175 per day, and Encanto at $162 per day. Because the youth at Encanto are severely emotionally disturbed, requiring extra staffing, individual rooms, intensive treatment and medication, it was assumed that the daily cost would be the highest of the Secure Care institutions. We found no explanation for this cost difference during our site visit. Because Catalina Mountain is a high quality facility, it may be that the higher cost is justified. However, this cost difference is substantial enough that additional analysis should be performed by ADJC. The analysis should include a review of outcome measures and results, which is the most meaningful way to determine if the daily costs of the facilities are justified. Over the last four years, ADJC has made significant strides towards instituting performance and outcome measures. ADJC is in the process of implementing and automating performance measures for secure care. Outcome measures are not as readily accessible as performance measures. AOC operates a completely different information system (JOLTS) than the ADJC YouthBase information system. Because the two systems are not linked, each agency is limited in their ability to determine outcomes. For instance, ADJC's current recidivism outcome measures are limited to ADJC related measures such as re-commitment to secure care, parole revocations and adult certification. Based on our review of Secure Care in State Institutions, we have compiled the following significant findings: Arizona Secure Care institutions may be facing a significant increase in admissions over the next ten years due to: Tougher sentencing policies arising from Proposition 102 and subsequent enabling legislation; and A projected 19% increase in the 8 to 17 year old age group between 1998 and 2008. Recent mandatory minimum sentencing legislation makes it more difficult for ADJC to manage the length of stay of the population it serves. There has been an increase in the number of low level offenders who are being sent to ADJC institutions for longer periods of time and a decrease in severe, violent offenders who are now being adjudicated and sentenced in adult court. Executive Summary Page ES 13 - Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report Deloitte Consulting DRAFT The turnover rate of first level Youth Correctional Officers exceeds any of the other related turnover rates in ADJC. While there is a need for increased treatment services, one of the most glaring gaps in ADJC programs is the lack of a comprehensive life skills program. ADJC continues to lead the state in the development, implementation and automation of performance and outcome measures, but the department is far from achieving all its goals. A complete analysis of recidivism and determination of cost effectiveness is impossible without linking the ADJC YouthBase and JOLTS information system. Based on our findings, we offer the following significant recommendations: The implementation of performance and outcome measures must continue as an ADJC priority ADJC, in conjunction with AOC and the County Probation Department must develop and support a single information system that contains accurate and meaningful data that will provide the basis for effective performance and outcomes measurement, and specifically allow for a comprehensive review of recidivism. ADJC should analyze the daily cost difference between Catalina Mountain and Encanto and determine if the higher cost is justified. ADJC should increase specialized treatment services with an emphasis on substance abuse, and develop a comprehensive life skills program for all Secure Care facilities. ADJC should work with the facilities and Probation and Parole Officers to ensure that comprehensive, meaningful and accurate information is documented in the case files in a timely and organized fashion. ADJC must continue to collaborate with AOCIJJSD, ADES, ADHS, ADE, local agencies and community organizations to insure that children and youth are receiving all necessary services. Post Secure Care Conditional Liberty in Arizona Post-Secure Care, also referred to as Parole, is the post-incarceration phase of the juvenile justice service continuum. The youth's freedom from Secure Care is based on certain conditions or consequences that must be met while living in the community. Conditional Liberty can include anything from Treatment to restitution to curfew. Juveniles are released from Conditional Liberty when they demonstrate stability in the community, are free from delinquent behavior, or when they reach the age of 18. Conditional Liberty staff supervise juveniles released from Secure Care and help them make the transition back to their home and community. In 1993 ADJC adopted the Graduated Continuum of Care Model. The goal of the Model is to provide more structure and clarity as to how and for whom intervention services will be utilized in the Conditional Liberty program. The Continuum of Care Model targets high-risk youth in Maricopa and Pima county. Executive Summary Page ES - 14 - Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report Deloitte Consulting DRAFT Conditional Liberty services have been extended beyond supervision to include an inhome evaluation of all ADJC youth in order to determine the proper treatment plan for the youth and to ascertain if the home is a viable option for the youth's return. In addition, parenting classes and counseling sessions are offered to the families. Another component to ADJC's Conditional Liberty is the availability of vocational and educational services. These services include job training, apprenticeship programs and vocational rehabilitation. ADJC also contracts for counseling, day treatment, residential placement and other services. ADJC recognizes the need to develop long term residential substance abuse programs, conduct disorder programs for females and residential sex offender programs. Conditional Liberty services are funded through state appropriations to ADJC. Actual expenditures for fiscal year 1997 were $15.6 million. The estimated cost of Conditional Liberty is $2242 per youth. Arizona falls well within the range of nation wide parole costs. With the assistance of the National Council on Crime and Delinquency, ADJC is in the process of implementing a comprehensive set of Conditional Liberty performance and outcome measures. ADJC recently implemented a workload management system that bases caseloads on the number of hours to be worked for each type of case assigned, rather than just the number of juveniles. On an annual basis, Conditional Liberty serves approximately 2,500 juveniles. The annual recidivism percentage is approximately 60% for all parolees. This is consistent with the recidivism rate for offenders with ten or more prior referrals who have received consequences from the court. More to the point, it is a reflection of reality. In our review of Post- Secure Care, we have compiled the following significant findings: Expanding the role of Conditional Liberty beyond supervision is effective. From 1992 to 1997, the number of youths suspended from Conditional Liberty dropped 74%. Conditional Liberty is beginning to offer more comprehensive services, including in home evaluation, family counseling, job training and vocational rehabilitation. This not only increases the chance for successll transition for juveniles, but also enhances public protection. The new Conditional Liberty caseload management system, based on workload and acknowledging the greater time and difficulty of certain types of cases, is an effective management tool that will assist managers in supervision of parole officers and reduce burnout. New approaches to Conditional Liberty have given rise to increased collaboration, although collaboration between ADJC and the public schools needs improvement. The fact that the fundamentals of identifling performance and outcome measures have been completed is very encouraging. Executive Summary Page ES 15 - Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report Deloitte Consulting DRAFT Based on our findings, we offer the following significant recommendations: Automation and the implementation of performance measures must continue as an ADJC priority in conjunction with AOC and County Probation departments. An evaluation of the newly established ADJC Continuum of Care Model must be completed to determine if resources are being utilized effectively. Collaboration and communication must be ongoing between all the players in the Arizona juvenile justice service continuum. Core Findings and Recommendations Core findings and recommendations relate to the fundamental, basic elements of any review. The core findings and recommendations presented here arise from our comprehensive review of the Arizona juvenile justice system, and have such a significant impact on the system that they warrant special attention by those policy makers and others who strive to make this system work well for juveniles, their families and the citizens of Arizona. The four core findings arising from this review are: lnvolvement of Families, Collective Ownership through use of Outcomes, Collaboration, and Joint Technology Support. lnvolvement of Families The community is essential in deterring juvenile crime, and will be addressed in our final core issue. However here the focus is on the role of the family. The family is the stakeholder: Closest to the juvenile, Has the most contact with the juvenile, At times, is the most influential with juvenile, and Maintains this contact for the longest period of time. Family involvement is a core issue in Arizona which can directly influence cost effectiveness as well as outcomes for children and youth. Current research found in juvenile justice literature and current federal juvenile delinquency policy clearly points to the involvement of families as crucial in prevention efforts and youth violence reduction, and Arizona family statistics confirm this. Intervention that simply focuses on the juvenile and ignores the family, will not work. Most Arizona Prevention programs appear to successfully engage youth in meaningful activities, but fall short in involving the youth's family. In the area of Intervention, we Page ES - 16 Executive Summary Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report Deloitte Consulting DRAFT found that in a majority of cases, families are not involved in Treatment. A review of Probation, Treatment and Secure Care case files shows that almost one-third of the files were missing any reference to family data. A review of Treatment provider case files indicates very little family outreach or engagement in the youth's Treatment program. The JOLTS captures very little family data. Other than the In-Home Family Evaluations conducted by ADJC Conditional Liberty Services, there appears to be little evidence of family involvement in the Arizona juvenile justice service continuum. ADJC has recently begun to place more emphasis on engaging the family early and often. But outcome data is not currently at sufficient enough detail at ADJC to "test" the theory that the engagement of the youth's family early and often in the Conditional Liberty program is "working". We strongly suggest that outcomes be established to validate the opportunities and benefits that could be derived from shifting from a "youthlincident" to a "family" focus approach. Our recommendations are: Arizona Prevention programs should be refocused to actively involve families in all aspects of services and activities. To the degree they are not doing so, judges should exercise their authority to order family members into parenting classes, other appropriate Treatment services and shared consequences with their child. Provider reimbursement rates should acknowledge and be contingent on a proactive effort to involve the family in the Treatment plan. Outcome targets and measures should be established and monitored related to family functioning before and after Treatment. Probation and Parole Officers should be required to conduct family assessments much l i e those done in the Conditional Liberty program operated by ADJC and all results and information about the family, their social and economic status and other special needs or considerations. This data should be updated as appropriate when progress is made or circumstances change for the family. Ideally, this information should be recorded in an automated case management system so that the information can be readily exchanged with other stakeholders in the juvenile justice continuum. Collective Ownership by use of Outcomes The juvenile justice continuum, as it is currently designed, has a number of automatic "hand-offs7' built into it, where juveniles are passed through from one part of the continuum to another, but with no one entity having an "ownership position". Each entity, including the policy-making bodies plays a significant role, but when problems occur, accountability is easily evaded and blame easily shifted. This lack of ownership extends to the other large human service delivery systems. There are multiple problem youth in the juvenile justice system and in the other systems. In fact many of the are in more than one system. This is why there continues to be a Executive Summary Page ES - 17 Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report Deloitte Consulting DRAFT debate in Arizona about creating a "children's agency" to stimulate a more collaborative, "holistic" approach to developing solutions for these children and youth. The issues these youth are facing are complex. Their family's problems are many and it takes every agency working collaboratively to solve this problem. While some deference is paid to collaboration, few examples were identified that suggest all involved public agencies worked closely together to solve these problems jointly, with shared resources and funds and as equal partners. Our recommendations are: The Governor and the Legislature must take the lead in creating an environment of collective ownership for the delivery of juvenile justice services as well as all services to children, and Arizona should not initiate a large scale reorganization as the way to achieve collaborative service delivery. Our proposal is that Arizona, through leadership of the Arizona Juvenile Justice Committee and with the cooperation of the juvenile justice system, attempt to solve this problem by developing outcome targets that cross all areas of the juvenile justice continuum. The following high-level steps would need to be completed to implement this approach. Adopt outcomes. Establish statewide annual and five-year targets. Develop baseline. Engage outcome champions. Develop action plans. Implement action plans. Remove barriers. Achieve targeted performance. Receive and invest incentives earned for performance. - We are further recommending that a significant amount of funding (e.g., 10 to 15%) be withheld from all state agencies to be reserved as an incentive pool that is earned for achievement of outcome targets. The earned incentive would then be distributed to all agencies who contributed to meeting outcome targets. We would not suggest this innovative strategy to many states. The reason is they lack the leadership capabilities required to make this type of change work. Leadership exists in Arizona at the executive, legislative, agency and county level. Further, the juvenile justice system in Arizona works. In other words, implementing an outcome approach is possible as the energy required to get a new approach like this implemented would not negatively impact the results already being achieved by the Arizona juvenile justice system. This Arizona system and the people who operate it are quite capable. Executive Summary Page ES - 18 Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report Deloitte Consulting DRAFT We believe implementing this type of approach to outcomes in Arizona where all agencies share in the success of the same outcomes is the only way to make a real and lasting impact for families involved in the juvenile justice system in Arizona. Further, if successfully implemented in this system: It could be rolled out to other human service agencies in the state, and It would help to maintain Arizona as a leader in the juvenile justice arena. This is a unique opportunity in Arizona. We hope the Arizona Juvenile Justice Committee will take on this important change and help to remove any barriers to its success. Collaboration In the context of the planning, fimding, design and delivery of human services, collaboration requires: An open, mutual exchange of information; A willingness to share resources; A capacity to understand that at times there are advantages to at least a partial sharing of power or relaxation of control; An ability to move beyond the categorical fimding limits, the specific service system culture and the professional practice values that usually are prevalent in any single service system; An experiential knowledge that many vulnerable and at-risk children and youth manifest multiple problem needs and therefore require multiple system responses; and A willingness to be accountable for common outcomes. Results of our evaluation indicate that both within the juvenile justice continuum and beyond, there are some positive examples of collaboration. On the other hand, if one applies the definition of collaboration identified above, while AOCIJJSD and ADJC work well in some specific instances, their overall collaborative working relationship with each other and with the counties and local communities could be substantially improved. Even more important, there is no effective statewide coordination and technical support for local and regional delinquency prevention efforts. this evaluation indicated that ADJC and AOCIJJSD have not developed an ongoing collaborative working relationship with ADE, ADES and ADHSIBHS. We understand this is an issue under initial consideration in the Governor's Community Policy Office. There also appears to be no unified set of principles set out in Arizona statute or other statewide policy level articulating a policy fiamework for coordination and collaboration. An example of such a set of principles can be found in the state of Washington. The Executive Summary Page ES 19 - Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report Deloitte Consulting DRAFT Family Policy Principles are an eloquent and compelling statutory commitment to vulnerable children and their families. Our recommendations are: Arizona should develop statutory policy principles that can guide future policy decisions and the delivery of comprehensive services to children, youth and their families; the principles should: Value collaborative planning, problem solving and service delivery; Prioritize family involvement in service delivery; and Reinforce the need for local planning, community-based Prevention and an outcomes-based focus. Arizona should establish a state level policy council including leadership representatives from the Governor's Office, ADJC, AOCIJJSD, ADES, ADE, ADHS and other appropriate organizations, where the primary focus is the improvement of coordination and collaborative service delivery. The Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission should be authorized as the state agency responsible for coordination and technical support for Arizona regional and local delinquency Prevention efforts ADJC and AOCIJJSD should strongly consider pooling their resources to solve the rural problem of insufficient services available in their communities. Joint Technology Support Data Exchange As we have established in the previous discussions on collaboration, free and easy exchange of information and data is a criteria to realize the full value of collaboration. During our evaluation we determined that all players, large and small, in the Arizona juvenile justice system operate on different computer systems and uniquely identify the youth or family. As a result, significant effort is required to try to perform a simple match of youth from the juvenile justice system to ADE, ADES or ADHSIBHS. While limited matches between two of these systems have been conducted in the past, the results have been less than satisfactory due to the effort required to complete the match, the fact that the data was already out of date by the time the match was shared as these youth move through these systems very quickly and, because of the unique identifiers, there was lack of confidence that the match results were comprehensive. The bottom line is, the state of Arizona has no efficient or effective way to track juveniles across state systems. Even within the juvenile justice system, AOC and ADJC have different computer systems. For Maricopa and Pima Counties, AOC does create a daily electronic file from JOLTS to pass to the ADJC YouthBase system that contains the offense history of the Page ES - 20 Executive Summary Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report Deloitte Consulting DRAFT youth that were committed that day. AOC is not able to perform this electronic transfer of case information for any youth that is committed to ADJC from a rural county. In this case, the information is exchanged in a manual fashion. Further, it should be noted, that this data exchange is currently one way. That is to say that AOC provides information to ADJC, but currently lacks the capacity to receive information back from ADJC. Given this lack of exchangeable data, is not reasonable or practical in Arizona to develop a comprehensive cost analysis of what juveniles, involved with multiple agencies in or out of the juvenile justice system, cost the state of Arizona. ADJC YouthBase Automated System ADJC has an exemplary commitment to updating and improving its information system. The ADJC is in the process of enhancing its capability to upload information from the AOC JOLTS system into YouthBase. A near-term goal is to provide a more comprehensive assessment of the youth in the Arizona juvenile justice system. The ADJC is also developing a database in which the relevant factors can be assessed, such as the risk score, the risk-needs evaluation; the Treatment proposed and completed (including education information); and the final outcomes (such as recidivism) can be determined. With all of these components automated on the same system, the agency should be able to develop meaningful program outcome measures and more closely pinpoint the cause of success andfor failure of the youth. ADJC hopes to have this work completed by fiscal year 1999. Once ADJC is fully automated, they will begin the process of producing timely and meaningful management reports to guide program design and service delivery. These reports will provide more meaningful data as complete and consistent data is detailed in the system over time. AOC JOLTS and Other Automated Systems AOC's automation system, JOLTS, is utilized by AOCIJJSD and all 15 counties to record information and status regarding juveniles, as well as manage Probation caseloads. There are currently three versions of JOLTS in operation with separate systems in Maricopa, Pima and the rural counties. There is a wealth of information in the system, however there are gaps in certain data. Given the fact that the technology that is used in JOLTS is more than 20 years old and the system is very complex, AOC has developed a number of other databases, like the Treatment billing system, which performs certain business functions that JOLTS does not provide. While this gets the work done, it is problematic. Further, as noted in our case file reviews, the JOLTS system does maintain key information about the juvenile. What is does not maintain is informatidn that would be more characteristic of information that would be used by a Probation Officer to manage the youth's case (i.e., progress notes obtained from Treatment Providers, educators or other key stakeholders). Executive Summary Page ES 21 - Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report Deloitte Consulting DRAFT Aside from better, more readily exchangeable case information that would help both Probation Officers, Treatment Providers and ADJC, having this case management functionality included in a comprehensive information system would greatly enhance AOC's capability to manage with performance and outcome information. Given the various systems operated by AOC, it becomes impractical to combine all of these databases any more than one time per year. AOC fights this battle every time they even think about preparing management reports and outcome measures. Couple this issue with the fact that AOC has very few technical resources available to support their information systems, they are often required to purchase programming and technical system support from outside experts. Our recommendations are: Although AOCIJJSD continues to move toward gathering more comprehensive information on the youth in the Arizona juvenile justice system, critical data from other entities (e.g., ADJC, ADHSBHS and ADES) are not easy to obtain or match to enhance their overall understanding of these youth and their families. All the players, including AOC, ADJC, counties ADE, ADES and ADHSBHS to develop a strategic systems plan to comprehensively support the Arizona juvenile justice system. We highly recommend that new systems developed in the state, like CHILDS for ADES Child Welfare, have a requirement that they.build the capacity to interface and support data exchange and use with other human service agencies in the state. Given the wide variety of technology platforms in the state, this is likely going to have to be accomplished through use of: A data warehouse, andlor Some other type of technology middle ware. 0 Given the status of development of the YouthBase system at ADJC, it may be possible that they could play a leadership role in creating an automated environment that supports the other agencies that support the Arizona juvenile justice continuum of care. AOCIJJDS must continue to move toward a single information system that contains accurate, meaninglid and consistent data to allow the basis for effective performance and outcome measurement. Conclusion It is our evaluation that the Arizona juvenile justice system is one of the best in the nation. Could it improve? Yes. Could it do a better job of justifying the public investment by developing and reporting outcome and performance measures? Yes. Are there changes that could be made that would make this an even better, more costeffective and efficient? Yes. Executive Summary Page ES - 22 Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report Deloitte Consulting DRAFT It is our belief that if the leadership of Arizona adopts the recommendations included throughout this report, but more specifically the core recommendations set forth in this section, that the Arizona juvenile justice system could operate more efficiently and effectively. The largest gains would be in the area of those youth that are served by multiple agencies across the state, are at the highest risk of becoming life-long dependents (e.g., in the adult corrections, social services or mental health services) on state systems. It is worth it to try to improve the results. Even if it reaches just a few juveniles, the potential long-term returns are material. As with many recommendations, more significant value would be achieved if all of these recommendations were adopted within short order of one another. The reason is that, if automation was enhanced to freely share information among agencies, they would: Better know what persons to coordinate and collaborate on; Have much more robust performance and outcome measures as they could combine the data from their agency with that of others to get a comprehensive view of results; and Understand better the interventions that work with families as well as the juvenile increasing their effectiveness and opportunity to convert members of the family to self-sufficient, productive citizens as opposed to life-long system users. Couple these benefits with increased collective ownership resulting in joint action planning and implementation to achieve results. This is a unique opportunity in Arizona. We hope the Arizona Juvenile Justice Committee will take on this important change and help to remove any barriers to its success. Executive Summary Page ES - 23 Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report Deloitte Consulting DRAFT Section 1 Introduction Draft Table of Contents Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Re~ort Deloitte Consultinq DRAFT Background The Juvenile Justice Committee of the Arizona State Legislature (the "Committee") selected Deloitte & Touche Consulting Group (Deloitte Consulting) as the vender to conduct an evaluation of all Arizona agencies that provide services to juveniles who are diverted from prosecution in Arizona juvenile courts or who are adjudicated as a delinquent or incorrigible. This evaluation was conducted as part of Laws 1997, Chapter 220, which implemented voter approved changes to the juvenile justice system. The project was approved in the middle of February 1998 and began on March 1,1998. Deloitte Consulting has completed this evaluation study encompassing the following areas: The performance, with an emphasis on outcome measures, of all Arizona agencies and the programs administered by those agencies that meet the statutory requirements for the scope of the study; and The cost effectiveness of the services of all agencies that meet the statutory requirements for the scope of this study. Given the scope of the evaluation and the necessary tasks as set forth in our proposal to the Committee, Deloitte Consulting is submitting our final report including recommendations for improvements in all Arizona agency performance and cost effectiveness of the juvenile justice system programs. Committee Project Coordination The Arizona Juvenile Justice Committee designated Representative Tom Smith as Project Coordinator. As Project Coordinator, Representative Smith served as the key contact for our team and was a significant contributor to the project by: Providing guidance throughout the evaluation, Coordinating project tasks and activities, and Receiving regular project status briefings. Representative Smith has been very attentive to this project, and has attended every project status meeting, committee meeting, as well as special meetings and focus groups. Representative Smith has honorably represented the Committee by his commitment to improving the Arizona juvenile justice system, forthright guidance, participation and unwavering drive to do the right thing for Arizona. Section 1 Introduction Page 1 - 1 Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report Deloitte Consultinq DRAFT Other Significant Contrtbutors to this Project In evaluations of this nature, it is in the state's best interests that the review team be dealt with openly and honestly to ensure it has the best information available to help Arizona build a better juvenile justice system. Many individuals went above and beyond their duty in supporting project activities, thus indicating their interest in improving the Arizona juvenile justice system. These persons include: Honorable William O'Neill, Pinal County Superior Court, Jesus Diaz, Pinal County Juvenile Probation, Donna Noriega, Administrative Office of the Courts, Juvenile Justice Services Division (AOCIJJSD), Bobbie Chinsky, AOCIJJSD, Cheri Townsend, Maricopa County Juvenile Probation, David Gasper, Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections, John Barrett, Maricopa County Juvenile Probation, and Judy Strahler, Pima County Juvenile Probation. Their assistance, insights and support strengthened the quality of this report. In addition to the individuals above, others also spent time and contributed to the success of this project including: 39 Providers of Juvenile Justice Services, Juvenile Court Judges in all Counties, County Attorney's in all Counties, Juvenile Probation Management and Staff in all Counties, Staff of AOC, Staff of ADJC, and Staff of the Governor's Office for Children. Evaluations of this nature require all parties' involvement, cooperation and work. The cooperation and participation of those noted above have enhanced the quality of this report for Arizona. lntroduction to the Remainder of this Report We believe the methodology employed in this evaluation project offers Arizona an efficient and effective approach to identifying the outcomes and cost effectiveness of Arizona's juvenile justice programs. Our work focused on identifying strengths and weaknesses in the management and organizational structures of the juvenile justice system. This identification was achieved by assessing positive attributes and core Section 1 Introduction Page 1 - 2 Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Re~ort Deloitte Consulting DRAFT problems previously unidentified in other studies, and by validating findings obtained in other studies. In doing so, we maximized the results of our efforts and minimized the resource impact on the Arizona juvenile justice programs. This approach allowed us to focus greater attention on the development of specific recommendations, if followed, will allow the Committee to implement visible and lasting improvements in the Arizona juvenile justice system. The results of our evaluation and associated recommendations are found in the following sections of this report: Section 2 Section 3 Section 4 Section 5 Section 6 Section 7 Section 8 Approach and Methodology Juvenile Justice System and Stakeholders Prevention Intervention Secure Care Post-Secure Care Core Findings and Recommendations The following section entitled Approach and Methodology sets forth basic premises and conditions upon which our approach is based. Our approach, methods and standards have been developed throughout our extensive experience with and analysis of the areas of juvenile justice organizational structure, management and administrative practices, systems of care and community integration. We recognize that each juvenile justice system is unique. While all our assumptions may not necessarily apply in every system, we do believe that many of the fundamentals are key to the administration of an efficient and effective juvenile justice program. Section 1 Introduction Page 1 3 - Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report Deloitte Consulting DRAFT Section 2 Methodology Draft Table of Contents Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report Deloitte Consultinq DRAFT Section 2 Approach and Methodology An evaluation of juvenile justice and human service programs indicates they tend to be more complicated than they appear, due to the required interdependencies of multiple providers and agencies. This has been the case in the Arizona juvenile justice system. We first reviewed relevant Arizona legislation. Using this background information, we compiled a comprehensive list of individuals with whom we felt it critical to conduct our initial interviews. A summary list of these individuals includes: Juvenile Justice Committee Co-Chairpersons and Other Members, Two Representativesof the Juvenile Court Judges, Two Representativesof the County Juvenile Probation Departments, Two Representatives of the Treatment Providers, Governor's Office, Two Representatives of the County Attorneys, Leadership of the Department of Juvenile Corrections, Leadership of the Administrative Offices of the Court, Leadership of the Arizona Department of Health Services, Behavioral Health Services, Leadership of the Arizona Department of Economic Security, and Leadership of the Arizona Department of Education. [Note: A complete list of all the providers included in the Site Visits is included in Appendix A of this report.] The purpose of the interviews we conducted included: Validating our understanding of program service delivery; Identifying a comprehensive list of service providers; and Identifying key persons with whom additional interviews or focus group sessions could be conducted to complete the budget and expense framework, the continuum of service framework, the outcome goals and the desired conditions for operations. Using the gathered information and other research, we identified programs that receive juvenile justice funding and the juveniles "eligible" for these programs. Using this approach, we developed a framework for the continuum of services provided to juveniles in Arizona. In addition, we developed the initial framework for budget and expenses, outcome measures and desired conditions for operations. Another critical deliverable developed while using this information was a comprehensive list of service providers. Finally, we used the information gathered in these processes to develop the site visit interview and information gathering guides, as well as the site visit plan. [Note: All of Section 2 Approach and Methodology Page 2 1 - Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Re~ort Deloitte Consultinq DRAFT these interim deliverables were formally delivered and approved by the Committee on June 18, 1998. They are bound in a separate report that is available upon request, but has not been included in this final report do to its size.] One of the tools developed by Deloitte Consulting for this type of project is the Desired Conditions of Operations Matrix (DCOM). The Desired Conditions of Operations Matrix represent the essential elements that are critical to the successful operation of juvenile justice programs. We have tailored this framework to the specific conditions in Arizona juvenile justice programs, as ascertained from information gathered in the above referenced interviews. The resultant desired conditions of operations are included in Appendix B of this report. Upon completion of these tasks, we conducted site visits. The first site visit group included 39 Treatment providers that deliver consequences and provide services to juveniles who were diverted from prosecution in Arizona Juvenile Courts, or who are adjudicated as delinquent or incorrigible. These providers were selected if they received revenues received from AOC or ADJC in excess of $90,000 in fiscal year 1997. The Treatment providers included in our site visits receive approximately 90% of the Treatment funds spent by the AOC and ADJC on an annual basis. The site visits for these treatment agencies consisted of the following activities: Interviews with agency management and key staff; Review contract compliance; Review licensing or other complaints, if any; Review financial information that includes completion of a matrix that identifies key costs for comparison with other agencies providing services; Program review, specifically focusing on performance and outcome management, as compared to the desired operating conditions identified prior to site visits; Reviews of a sample of closed case files to validate program approach, desired conditions of operations and outcomes reporting; Reviewed data from various juvenile justice information systems to benchmark recidivism by consequence type; Review and validation of all outcome and performance management information; and, Review and determination of how management and oversight agencies utilize outcome and performance information to make improved decisions regarding how services are delivered and improved. As part of this evaluation, all County Probation Offices and three of the five Conditional Liberty Offices were visited. Additionally, we visited every county detention facility and Section 2 Approach and Methodology Page 2 - 2 Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final R e ~ o r t Deloitte Consulting DRAFT interviewed 13 of 15 County Attorneys, or their designees and a number of other significant parties at the county level. The site visits at these locations consisted of the following activities: Interviews with agency management and key staff; Interviews with juvenile court judge and county attorneys; Review of financial information; Program review, specifically focusing on performance and outcome management, as compared to the desired operating conditions identified prior to site visits; Reviews of a sampling of closed cases to validate program approach, desired conditions of operations and outcomes reporting; Review of data fiom various juvenile justice information systems to benchmark recidivism by consequence type; Review and validation of all outcome and performance management information; and, Review and determination of how management and oversight agencies utilize outcome and performance information to make improved decisions regarding how services are delivered and improved. Data gathered at these site visit interviews and reviews was analyzed and evaluated with ow external juvenile justice experts. This analysis, along with the initial research conducted, allowed us to develop our findings and recommendations. We then conducted five focus groups with key stakeholders from across the state to validate our findings, and solicit their insights on "what is working" and "what is not". Stakeholders in the focus groups included: Representatives of the Juvenile Justice Committee, Representatives of the Juvenile Court Judges, Representatives of the Juvenile Probation Departments, Representatives of the Treatment Providers, Representatives of the County Attorneys, Leadership of the Department of Juvenile Corrections, Leadership of the Administrative Offices of the Court - Juvenile Justice Services Division, and Other interested parties. m e In these sessions we reviewed some preliminary findings. The participants in the focus groups provided constructive feedback on the analysis, and presented their insights as to what they feel are appropriate recommendations for Arizona, given the preliminary findings. Section 2 Approach and Methodology Page 2 - 3 Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report Deloitte Consultinq DRAFT The focus group participants identified a number of additional analyses and research items that we have included. Using information gathered in this manner has enhanced the overall quality of the findings and recommendations included in this report. Development of the final report has included developing draft reports and reviewing them with appropriate persons as designated by the Project Coordinator, Representative Smith. The sections that follow set forth the specific findings and recommendations for each area of the Arizona Juvenile Justice Continuum. These include: System Structure and Stakeholders; Prevention; Intervention, including: Diversion, Probation, and Treatment; Secure Care; and Post-Secure Care. Each section includes a description of findings and recommendations associated with this part of the juvenile justice continuum. The final section of this report identifies the Core Findings and Recommendations. We believe these Core Recommendations include potential enhancements in the policies and practices throughout the state of Arizona. Section 2 Approach and Methodology Page 2 4 - Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report Deloitte Consulting DRAFT Section 3 Juvenile Justice System Structure and Stakeholders Draft Table of Contents Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report Deloitte Consulting DRAFT Section 3 Juvenile Justice System Structure and StakehoIders Juvenile Justice System Structure in Arizona In Arizona, many entities have a role in influencing and serving children who have been adjudicated as delinquent or diverted from delinquency and prosecution. Exhibit 3-1 below, is a graphical depiction of the major stakeholders, by component, involved in the lives of children in Arizona's juvenile justice service continuum. Primary Prevention Family Communily Groups + Big BrotherdSisters + Churches + BoyslGirlsClub + Other Community Groups Arizona Department of Education + Safe Schwls + DARE + Other Department of Education Programs Probation Law Enforcement Adminrstrative Officeof the Courts + JCRF Funded Programs Governors Office for Children Behavioral Heallh Services and Department of Economic Security + Healthy Start + Head Start + Kids Care Other Services JuvenileCourt + CASA FCRB (at AOC) + Dependency I I Services Intervention Administrative Officeof the Courts + JCRF Funded Programs Arizona Department of Education + Safe Schwls + Other Department of Education Programs County Juvenile Probation Secure Care OutofHme Care EducationNocatonal Training + Day & Evening Support + Counseling EvaluationlAssessment Supervision + Diversion + Community Work Victim Resbtution + Teen Court Local and State Law Enfmement BehavioralHealth Outof Home CarelTreatment Counseling EvalualionlAssessment Other Behavioral Health Services county Attorneys DES + Placement Foster Care ; I Incarceration Department of Juvenile Corrections + Secure Care EducationNocational Training + Counseling + Eval./Assesmenl + Recreation Medical Services County Juvenile Detelllion Faciliis + Secure Care + EducationNocational Training + Counseling + Eval.lAssessnent + Recreation + Medical Services I 1 I I :. I I : I I I I I I I . I . . - I I I + I I I I ---- . - . PostIncarceration Department of Juvenile Corrections Parole + Out of Home Care + EducationNocatonal Training Day & Evening Support + Counseling I I I I I I - :. I I I I I . . Adult Departmentof Corrections Adult Parole Adult Probation County Jail County Probation OutofHome Care + EducationNocational Training + Day & Evening Support Counseling - I I I I I I I - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The most significant players in the publicly-funded system, depicted above, include the: Administrative Offices of the Court, Juvenile Justice Services Division (AOCIJJSD or AOC), Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections (ADJC), and Fifteen County Superior Court Juvenile Probation Departments. Although these are the most significant players in this juvenile system, there are a number of other additional players that contribute to, or detract from, the success of this Section 3 Juvenile Justice Structure And Stakeholders Page 3 - 1 Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report Deloitte Consulting DRAFT juvenile justice system. Some of these are publicly h d e d , while others are not. They include: The juvenile and his family. The juvenile's neighborhood and community, Arizona Department of Education and the youth's school, Law enforcement, County Attorney's, Treatment Providers, Arizona Department of Economic Security (ADES), and Arizona Department of Health Services, Behavioral Health Services (ADHSIBHS). The first four players are involved in every case that comes to the attention of Arizona's juvenile justice system, as they are involved at such an integral level in the "protective factors" that establish the youth's success, or lack of success, in being a productive, law abiding citizen. Protective factors are qualities or conditions that moderate a juvenile's exposure to risk. The last four players on the list may be involved in the case. If the youth is arrested, the County Attorney often plays a role, even if the role is as minor as deciding which offenses are eligible for diversion or prosecution. If the youth is arrested and is sent to a Treatment program as a consequence for their delinquent acts, whether it be to a Diversion program or a Residential Treatment Center, then Treatment Providers play a significant role. ADES and ADHSIBHS may already be involved in the juvenile's life or may become involved as a result of a referral from the juvenile justice agencies. It takes all of these major players, working together, to make this system work. If one player does not do its part, it creates more work for all the others. To begin to understand the structure and magnitude of the Arizona juvenile justice system, we performed an examination of the costs and related funding for the juvenile justice continuum provided to youth in this system. The following graph, Exhibit 3-2, depicts the overall spending and sources of spending in the Arizona juvenile justice system for the year ended June 30, 1997, for the publicly funded juvenile justice entities. Section 3 Juvenile Justice Structure And Stakeholders Page 3 - 2 Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report Deloitte Consulting DRAFT Exhibit 3-2 Juvenile Justice (JJ) -State (Appropriatedand NonAppropriated)and County Expenditures pxckrdng JJ Costa kcunvdbv ADES andADHS1 YearEndedJune30,1997 Source: AOC, ADJC, JLBC I Ju6ldary- Suparlw C o u Department of Juvenile Comdlonr I County Funding -Superior Coult. J I The other players in the system all operate on different computer systems and uniquely identify the youth or family. As a result, significant effort is required to try to match youth from the juvenile justice system to ADE, ADES or ADHSBHS. While limited matches between two of these systems have been conducted in the past, the results have been less than satisfactory due to the effort required to complete the match, the fact that the data was already out of date by the time the match was shared as these youth move through these systems very quickly and, because there were no unique identifiers, there was little confidence that the match results were comprehensive. The bottom line is, the state of Arizona has no efficient or effective way to track juveniles across state systems. Given this past experience, the effort required and the concern about the quality of the results, it was determined not to be efficient and effective to ask these agencies to conduct a match that would allow us to provide a more comprehensive cost analysis of what these juveniles cost the state of Arizona. Consequently, the chart in Exhibit 3-2 does not include spending occurring in the other entities involved with the Arizona juvenile justice system that are providing related services to children in Arizona who may be atrisk for entering or may be currently known to the system. We also derived average annual costs for consequences imposed upon youth in the Arizona juvenile justice system. Exhibit 3-3, below, provides a summary of major programs and services and their related annual costs per juvenile for fiscal year 1997 (as a new program, diversion costs presented are from fiscal year 1998) offered in the continuum of care. Section 3 Juvenile Justice Structure And Stakeholders Page 3 - 3 Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report Deloitte Consulting DRAFT Exhibit 3-3 Average Cost Per Juvenile Served As displayed in this graph, the public cost of managing juvenile delinquency becomes increasingly more expensive as a youth moves from least restrictive (i.e., Intervention) to the most restrictive (i.e., Secure Care in a State Institution or Incarceration) component of the Arizona juvenile justice continuum. It is simple to see from these costs that it is in the best interest of all concerned, but particularly the state and the juvenile, that the juvenile's delinquent behavior never lead to a situation where they are committed to Secure Care in a State Institution. It is important to understand the juvenile crime problem in Arizona to obtain a perspective on the youth that are presented to the juvenile justice system and what they have done to get themselves there. To gain this understanding of juvenile crime, it is important to review the juvenile justice track, or continuum, in light of the number of youth that reach each stage of the continuum. Exhibit 3-4 on the following page summarizes the disposition of juveniles entering the system in fiscal year 1997 Section 3 Juvenile Justice Structure And Stakeholders Page 3 - 4 Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report Deloitte Consulting DRAFT First, it is important to note that only 7.5% of the total juvenile population in Arizona received a referral to Juvenile Court during this year. Of those referred, 29% were brought into the system, warned and released; and another 34% were diverted from prosecution through programs such as Teen Court and unpaid community work. In other words, 63% of thejuveniles entering the system were not charged with a crime by the County Attorneys. Roughly 35% of the youth presenting in the system (3% of children in Arizona's total population) had petitions filed by the County Attorneys, where formal charges were brought against them. Of those petitions filed, 40% were either dismissed or resulted only in a penalty, with the remaining 60% receiving consequences administered by the primary players in Arizona's juvenile justice system. Less than 2% of the total juvenile population of Arizona were processed through thejuvenile court system, resulting in significant consequences and treatment. Other Arizona juvenile crime statistics worthy of mention include: Of the 50,210 youth who were referred to the uvenilejustice system in fiscal year 1997,46% were first-time offenders. Felony crimes accounted for 34% of the referrals to the system, the remaining offenses were misdemeanor, administrative, status and other. While 53% of the total juvenile population are male, they commit over 68% of the offenses being referred to Juvenile Court. Of thosejuveniles referred to the system, 3,039, or 6%, committed violent acts, or felonies against a person. Thesejuveniles represent one half of one percent of the total juvenile population in Arizona. The remainder of the crimes included drug charges, fights, crimes against property, such as theft, and other status and administrative offenses. Many of these statistics are surprising to policy-makers and citizens who are not entirely familiar with Arizona's juvenile justice system. Some of this information negates typical stereotypes of the magnitude and severity of juvenile crime in our state and our nation. We then attempted to increase our understanding of the Arizona juvenile justice system by focusing our attention on the missions and objectives of the primary stakeholders and their roles in the continuum of care. Administrative Offices of the Court, Juvenile Justice Services Division (AOC/JJSD or A OC) The AOCIJJSD provides administrative support and oversight for the county juvenile justice systems in the following programs. - -- Section 3 Juvenile Justice Structure And Stakeholders Page 3 6 - Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report Deloitte Consulting DRAFT Prevention, through the Juvenile Crime Reduction Fund, Intervention, which includes: Diversion, Standard Probation, Intensive Probation, and Treatment. The AOCIJJSD serves as the coordinating agency for policy, service contracts and payments to Treatment Providers that comprise the continuum of treatment services authorized or ordered by the Juvenile Courts. A more in-depth discussion of those programs and activities can be found in Section 5 of this report. The AOCIJJSD is also responsible for management of the state appropriations allocated to fund these treatment and probation efforts. AOCIJJSD collaborates with the counties to establish and monitor County budgets for these services. In addition, AOCIJJSD and the counties work together to monitor the performance of Treatment Providers and Juvenile Probation Officers. The AOCIJJSD total expenditures for the year ended June 30, 1997, were approximately $43 million funded with state appropriations. These expenditures, displayed in Exhibit 35 below, were used to fund the following breakout of program costs. Exhibit 3-5 AOCIJJSD Costs by Program Total Expenditures $43M Year Ended June 30,1997 - . AOC Administration (Est.) - 20./. oAOC Family Counseling - BAOC Intensive Probation - Juvenile (intensive) oAOC - Juvenile Probation State Aid (regular) . AOC - Juvenile Treatment Services (sewices) These f h d s were used to provide services to approximately 50,210 children in the juvenile justice system for state appropriated dollars administered by AOCIJJSD and the Section 3 Juvenile Justice Structure And Stakeholders Page 3 7 - Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report Deloitte Consulting DRAFT 15 counties. The average annual costs and comparative national averages for the major components of the AOCIJJSD structure are summarized below. Arizona Averaae Standard Probation Intensive Probation Treatment $1,247 $4,900 $ 453 National Averane $ 8 0 3 to $2,555 $2,719 to $5,913 Not Available Due to the variability of levels of treatment and the accounting for treatment-related costs throughout the nation, we were unable to obtain reliable and comparable national averages. A more detailed discussion of these cost components of the AOCIJJSD will be provided in Section 4 of this report. In addition, the results of our interviews, analysis conducted on and operations review of AOC is included in Appendix A of this report. Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections (ADJC) The ADJC is responsible for the development, implementation and management of the following programs. Secure Care in a State Institution, including: Permanent Secure Facilities, including: Adobe Mountain, Black Canyon, Catalina Mountain, and Encanto; Rincon Temporary Diagnostic Unit; and Boot Camp. Post-Secure Care (often referred to as Aftercare), including: Conditional Liberty, Graduated Continuum of Care, and Other wraparound services to ensure appropriate transition into the community. The ADJC directly provides the majority of these services with its own employees and facilities. However, private providers also administer some treatment programs in the Post-Secure Care component of the continuum. The ADJC is responsible for contractual agreements, payments and oversight of these providers. In analyzing AOC and ADJC operations, we identified a best practice that is worthy of note and is highlighted in ABP 3.1 below. Section 3 Juvenile Justice Structure And Stakeholders Page 3 - 8 Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report Deloitte Consulting DRAFT ABP -3.1 Interagency Collaboration on Use of Treatment Provider Contracts It should be noted that ADJC and AOC have entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement that allows them to use each other's Treatment Providers. This type of arrangement reduces duplication of effort in that only one agency has to perform monitoring of the Treatment Provider. This type of collaborative effort is more efficient for the state agencies and for the Treatment Providers. While care must be taken to ensure that the administrative load for this type of relationship is shared, so that one agency is not overburdened, this is a wonderful example of collaboration and efficiency on the part of both agencies and on behalf of the Treatment Providers. A more in-depth discussion of the ADJC programs and activities can be found in Sections 6 and 7, while the results of our review of the agencies operations and other analysis in included in Appendix B of this report. The ADJC total expenditures, for the year ended June 30, 1997, were approximately $53 million funded mostly by state appropriations. These expenditures were used to fund the following breakout of program costs, depicted in Exhibit 3-6 below. Exhibit 3-6 Department of Juvenile Corrections Total Ependitures $53 Million Year Ended June 30,1997 Source: WC Internal Financial Statements - ADJC Administration ADJC Education 50% ADJC C o m n i t y Care ADJC Boot Camp m ADJC Other Secure Care During fiscal year 1997, the ADJC supervised approximately 700 youth on any given day in Secure Care. The average length of incarceration is approximately 21 1 days for each juvenile with the annual cost of a placement in a State Institution averaging $47,579. This information compares to a national average of approximately 294 days per juvenile at an annual cost of $42,707. Section 3 Juvenile Justice Structure And Stakeholders Page 3 - 9 Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report Deloitte Consulting DMFT In addition, ADJC serves approximately 2,500 youth annually in Post-Secure Care on Conditional Liberty at an average annual cost of $6,247 per juvenile, which includes the cost of oversight and treatment services provided to the youth (labeled as Community Care, above). The average length of time a youth spends in the Conditional Liberty Program is approximately 200 days. Due to variability in levels of treatment and related costs on a national basis, we were not able to obtain a reliable national figure for comparative purposes. However, we did note that the annual Conditional Liberty costs were approximately 17% higher than the annual combined costs of Intensive Probation and Treatment services per juvenile at AOCIJJSD of $5,353. This difference appears reasonable given the severity differences in the individuals being served. County Superior Court Juvenile Probation Departments (County Probation Departments) In Arizona, County Probation Departments operate under the authority of the Presiding Judge of the Juvenile Court of each county and is a Division of the Arizona Superior Court. Each presiding Judge has the authority to appoint the Chief Juvenile Probation Officer, who supervises the County Probation Department. The County Probation Departments have the responsibility to provide the following types of general services to youth citizens of the county who have been adjudicated as delinquent or diverted from prosecution: Diversion, Court, Probation, Treatment, and Secure Care in a Detention Facility. The County Attorney's Offices, Judges and Juvenile Probation Departments in each of the counties are responsible for all facets of the juvenile justice system directly affecting youth prior to commitment in a State Institution. Typically, an arrest is referred to a Probation Officer for assessment. The Probation Officer meets with the youth and his parents, if possible, and decides whether to refer the case to the County Attorney for prosecution, to warn and release the juvenile, or to enter the juvenile in a diversion program if the charges meet the criteria established by the County Attorney. ' In the event that a case is referred to the County Attorney for prosecution, the Probation Officer prepares a report for the court detailing the youth's history, including prior offenses, if any exist, as well as a Disposition Report, describing recommendations for consequences. The County Attorneys then enter the process by making decisions on the charges to bring against a youth and filing a petition with the Court. The County Attorneys have significant influence on the lives of children entering the system. Under mandatory - Section 3 Juvenile Justice Structure And Stakeholders Page 3 - 10 Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report Deloitte Consulting DRAFT minimum sentencing, the decision on charges alone can make the difference between mandatory incarceration in a State Institution, referral to an adult court, or other less restrictive consequences. The County Attorney can also choose to divert youth from the court process, and enroll them in programs to help ensure that they will not be referred to the court again. Under Senate Bill 1446, County Attorneys have the opportunity to assume responsibility for development and maintenance of diversion programs from the County Probation Departments. At this time, the County Attorneys throughout the state have chosen to have the responsibility remain with the County Probation Departments, although several County Attorneys are becoming more involved in this facet of the continuum. Finally, the Juvenile Court Judges can significantly impact the youth in the system through their adjudications. The Judge is responsible for reviewing the petition filed by the County Attorney and the related documents filed by the Probation Officer and making a final determination on the appropriate consequences for the youth. The Judge often has very limited time to review the petition and other reports, and often relies on the recommendations and expertise of the County Attorney and the Probation Officer, so it is critical that they work together to propose the most effective consequences for the juvenile. We noted a positive and collaborative working relationship between the County Attorneys and the Probation Officers in each of the counties. In some counties, Superior Court Judges are rotated to cover the Juvenile C o w docket, while others have Judges who preside only over juvenile offenses. We found that the Judges whose focus was specifically on juveniles tended to be more engaged and cognizant of the needs and appropriate consequences of the youth that came before them. These Judges often recommend and assist with developing innovative consequences for youth to discourage them from future delinquent activity. We also found examples of Judges attempting to hold parents accountable for the actions of their children. Though, we did not witness consequences being consistently and effectively administered to parents who did not comply with the Courts' mandates. Each County Probation Department administers these programs using an allocation of state appropriations budgeted through AOCIJJSD in combination with its County General Funds. Some counties also receive other limited funds, such as special grants to fundspecific programs. Overall, the County Probation Departments fund approximately $23 million, or roughly 27%, of the juvenile justice costs throughout the state. Expenditure levels and funding sources, as well as approximate costs per juvenile, for each County Probation Department are included in Appendix B of this report. Stakeholder Site Visits With the major stakeholders included in the scope of this report having a combined spending level of more that $132 million financed by the public, we felt it necessary to perform an on-site review of each to better understand their operations and assess the Section 3 Juvenile Justice Structure And Stakeholders Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report Deloitte Consulting DRAFT impacts of these operations on the youth being served by the Arizona juvenile justice system. As noted in Section 2 of this report, we conducted the following site visits: AOCIJJSD, ADJC, Sixteen County Juvenile Court Judges, Each of the fifteen County Probation Departments, Thirteen of the fifteen County Attorneys, and Thirty-nine major Treatment Providers (whose costs are included in the expenditures depicted in the Exhibits 3-1 and 3-6 above). For each of these entities, Deloitte Consulting performed a detailed analysis of operations to compare the current environment to the desired environment, as defined in Interim deliverables for this project and approved in June 1998. The major areas of operation assessed included the following: Organization and Management, Program Mission and Objectives, Program Design and Service Delivery, Program Financing and Management, Staff and Resource Allocation, Performance Management, Information Systems, and Coordination and Collaboration with Other Agencies - Public and Private. Conclusion Appendix B of this report provides certain demographic and funding information for each of the entities, the results of the operational analyses and the resultant issues for each of the agencies and counties. In addition, a summary analysis of the provider assessments is included to describe the overall operating conditions and issues for all of the participating providers. Performance for each entity was measured by the Desired Conditions of Operations Matrix (DCOW which is included for review in each entity's summary. Information about each of the programs and operating components of the continuum of care of the Arizona juvenile justice system, whether provided by the public entities or private providers, is described in detail in Sections 4 through 7 of this report. We will start in Section 4 with a discussion of Prevention in Arizona. Section 3 Juvenile Justice Structure And Stakeholders Page 3 - 12 Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report Deloitte Consulting DRAFT Section 4 Prevention Draft Table of Contents Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report Deloitte Consulting DRAFT Prevenfion Juvenile Crime Prevention Effective Prevention programs are essential in keeping children and youth out of the juvenile justice system. Although the scope of this project does not include a detailed analysis of the Prevention efforts in the state of Arizona, Prevention is a significant component of the Juvenile Justice Service Continuum. As such, these programs can influence the type and number of youth served by other components of the service continuum. Accordingly, Prevention programs warrant mention and a high-level analysis in an evaluation of this nature. General information related to the current public funding and program efforts of juvenile crime prevention is included in this section, along with some general findings and recommendations presented for consideration. First, it is important to provide a definition of Prevention, as it is often misunderstood. In the context of juvenile crime, Prevention collectively refers to all efforts to avert delinquent behavior. Prevention efforts identify the factors contributing to delinquent behavior and then develop "protective factors" to address and ameliorate those factors. Protective factors are qualities or conditions that moderate a juvenile's exposure to risk.' According to the definitions provided above, juvenile crime Prevention programs focus on involving youths in activities that provide positive influences in their lives and keep them from engaging in delinquent behavior. Prevention programs work by developing positive life skills, minimizing risk factors, offering support and direction to the families and youth that participate, or simply by occupying the youth's time with activities that keep them out of trouble. Patterns of juvenile delinquent behavior show that the greatest time for delinquent activities are in the hours just after school ends. A 1992 study conducted by the Carnegie Foundation determined that children spend 60 percent of their non-sleeping time occupied by school, homework, chores, meals or employment. Many juveniles spend the remaining 40 percent of their time alone or with peers but without adult supervision1. Children in low-income families are more likely than others to be home alone for three or more hours each day1. There have been many studies focusing on the causes and risk factors for juvenile delinquency. Experts believe that there are many circumstances in a child's life that may lead him down the path of delinquency, a few examples of these conditions include: Abuse or neglect by family members or others; Peer groups consisting of delinquent juveniles; Ready access to drugs or guns; Teen pregnancy; Familial history of incarceration; and Unsafe and/or ineffective schools. Section 4 Prevention Page 4 1 - Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report Deloitte Consulting DRAFT The presence of one or more of these factors in a young person's life may lead him off the path of normal adolescent development and into the justice system as a delinquent juvenile. Experts in the area of Juvenile crime agree that Prevention strategies are critical to help reduce these risk factors and provide youths with the opportunity to flourish and become productive members of society. Prevention in Arizona In Arizona, Primary Prevention programs are designed to keep children from entering the juvenile justice system. Other Secondary Prevention programs in Arizona are designed to keep juvenile delinquents that have previously received court-referred services from reentering the juvenile justice system. Both of these Prevention programs utilize: Direct methods such as one-on-one or group educational programs which serve to inform kids of the consequences of delinquent behavior and ways in which to make proper and knowledgeable choices when faced with negative influences; and Indirect methods that offer fun and entertaining activities such as after school programs, Grad Nights and recreational activities to occupy youth's idle time with positive and influential interactions. Prevention programs often also assist parents in improving parenting and recognizing warning signs. The key to success for these programs lies in early identification of at-risk behaviors with immediate intervention to steer children away from delinquent activities and keep them on the path to successful education and development. Key Stakeholders in Prevention Children are influenced by a number of people in their lives. Many of these people become key participants in the Prevention effort. The direct participants in juvenile crime Prevention can be broken down into four basic areas that include; families, schools, communities and juveniles themselves. Examples of influential participants include the following: Grandparents Aunts and Uncles Siblings Businesses and Employers Universities or Colleges Non-Profit Agencies Athletic Teams The players listed above all have the potential for direct and meaningful contact with juveniles in their communities or in their homes, and may have either positive or negative influences on a child's life, depending on the circumstances of the relationship. The power of Prevention resides in the coordinated effort of these players to build a positive web of influence around at-risk youth. Section 4 Prevention Page 4 - 2 Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report Deloitte Consulting DRAFT There is also a fifth participant group that may not have direct contact with at-risk youths, but does have the potential to positively impact children and their families. This group includes the policy makers who impact the children of Arizona. Federal, state and local policy makers play an integral role in prioritizing Prevention activities and facilitating the development and maintenance of Prevention programs in Arizona. Funding and Costs Research has placed the cost of juvenile incarceration nationally at between $34,000 and $64,000' per year per juvenile. The cost of a young adult's (i.e., 18 to 23 years of age) criminal career through adulthood has been estimated to be as much as $1.1 million dollars'. In contrast, Prevention programs, in contrast, cost thousands less per year for each juvenile. In fact, a study conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice, Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention found one delinquency Prevention program in California was able to produce a direct cost saving of $1.40 for every $1.OO spent in law enforcement and juvenile justice resources1. Other similar examples of the cost-effectiveness of investment in Prevention from across the nation are highlighted below. The Federal Job Corps Program helps at-risk youth overcome barriers to employment. A study found that every dollar invested in Job Corps returned $1.46 to society through decreased income maintenance payments, reductions in costs of incarceration and taxes paid by former Job Corps students. Youth Education And Employment Program helps youth build confident, self-reliant lives through a flexible, comprehensive program of education, life/pre-employment skills training,job placement, and counseling. The program has placed 75% of its participants in unsubsidized employment. Straight Talk About Risks comprehensive school program is designed to prevent gunshot injuries and deaths among children and teens by teaching students the protective skills needed to avoid threatening situations involving firearms. In the Dade County (Florida) Public Schools program, there was a 30% decrease in gun injuries and deaths among school-aged youth as a result of this program. Through education, awareness, mediation and police involvement, the Youth Gang Unit School Safety Program in Ohio attempts to help youth steer away from gang activity and other violent activities. According to police reports, the program's proactive efforts contributed to a 39% reduction in school gang-related incidents in the 1992-93 school year. The mission of the Gang Prevention/lntervention Coalition in Washington, D.C. is to reduce the rate of youth violence by providing positive opportunities for youth in several community centers. Through education and information, prevention and intervention activities, and mentor guidance, youth violence has decreased by 80% over three years in the six neighborhoods where the Coalition operates. Section 4 Prevention Page 4 3 - Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report Deloitte Consulting DRAFT A Columbia University study found that public housing projects containing Boys and Girls Clubs have crime rates 13% lower than projects without them. Prevalence of drug activity is 22% lower and crack cocaine presence is 25% lower in projects with a Club. Aimed at high-risk youth, the Massachusetts Prevention Club acts as a physical sanctuary from the streets and serving as an extended family providing positive role models on a daily basis. Researchers from Rutgers University tracked youths in the program and found a reduced rate of school dropout and a decreased number of arrests. When the police were brought in to serve as mentors to the youth, crime declined in the target area by over 20%. Public Housing residents in Ohio responded to a crime epidemic by launching late night and weekend supervised recreation activities. In the Winton Hills program's first thirteen weeks, reported crime dropped by 24%. Project Head Start, a well known Prevention program, is designed to help children of low income families. It focuses on the development of the child's intellect, fosters emotional and social development, provides health and nutritional services, and involves parents and the community in these efforts. An evaluation of I ,500 Head Start programs found improvement in school performance, increases in self-esteem and motivation, lowered school absenteeism, and improvement in the child's health and nutrition. The Michigan High/Scope Perry Preschool program is based on the Head Start model. According to the latest findings of the High/Scope Educational Research Foundation, adults who were born into poverty and attended a high-quality, active learning preschool program at ages three and four have half as many criminal arrests, higher earnings and property wealth, and greater commitment to marriage. Over the participants' lifetimes, the public receives an estimated $7.16 return for every dollar. Currently, Project Head Start reaches only 35% of eligible children. The chart on the following page illustrates the different outcomes for persons involved in this program. Section 4 Prevention Page 4 - 4 Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report Deloitte Consulting DRAFT HighlScope Perry Preschool Study: Major Findings at Age 27 Project Head Start Program N o Prog~ 5 or More Arrests $2000+ EarningsIMo. Homeowner Receive Social High School Services Graduates While we could find no comparable information to measure the impact of Prevention programs in Arizona, it is our strong belief that development of and provision of adequate and consistent funding for Prevention programs can lead to direct cost savings for the juvenile justice system, and even the broader criminal justice system, in Arizona. The most expensive way to deal with children and violence is to wait for children to become criminals. Instead of spending between $34,000 and $64,000 per year per juvenile to put them in Secure Care in a State Institution, Arizona should focus funding and efforts on keeping children from committing delinquent acts in the first place. Funding for Prevention programs-in Arizona comes from a wide variety of sources including: Federal block and incentive grants; Allocated funds from the Governor's Division for Children (GDFC); Juvenile Crime Reduction Fund (JCRF) monies through the Administrative Offices of the Court (AOC); Tobacco Tax Funds; Juvenile Accountability Block Grants; State appropriations and federal matching funds from various state and local agencies-; County funds; City funds; and Donations from non-profit agencies, foundations and businesses. The accurate level of statewide investment in Prevention is hard to quantify because of the number of unknown actual and volunteer resources invested at all levels of government and the community. When considering the risk factors for children described previously, it becomes apparent that Prevention efforts can be far-reaching, ranging from efforts to prevent child abuse, neglect and teen pregnancy, to campaigns against alcohol, drug and tobacco use, to programs designed to keep kids in school. Section 4 Prevention Page 4 5 - Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report Deloitte Consulting DRAFT This report does not attempt to quantify the total dollars spent on these services for children and their families. However, Exhibit 4-1 below provides examples of approximate spending or funding levels provided for in Arizona for certain publicly funded Prevention efforts2. Exhibit 4-1 In summary, for those programs where information was available, the total public financing expended on Prevention in Arizona in fiscal year 1997 was approximately $24.3 million. We believe this figure is actually higher but not determinable due to a lack of overall tracking and coordination. National averages of Prevention funding from other states were not available for comparative purposes. While several national studies have been attempted, for some of the same reasons funding levels could not always be obtained in Arizona, none have been able to accommodate the variances in the many state and local systems in the country to provide meaningful and comparable data. The most important information to be taken from a general discussion of funding of Prevention programs is the effect these dollars have on the broad-based goal of deterring juvenile delinquency. Beyond the fact that deterring juvenile crime will reduce the costs to the criminal justice system, public monies tend to have a "multiplier effect", as the public dollars, if properly utilized, tend to stimulate increased community effort and investment. Through community partnerships and volunteerism that can evolve from publicly funded programs, the actual public dollars spent often become just a small part of the overall community investment. Efforts involving community and business volunteers, in conjunction with families, can have a profound impact on children's lives. Section 4 Prevention Page 4 - 6 Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report Deloitte Consulting DRAFT A wonderful example of this occurring in Arizona is the use of Juvenile Crime Reduction Fund monies to "jump start" community involved Prevention programs. This Prevention program is highlighted below as a Best Practice, ABP 1. - ABP- I Juvenile Crime Reduction Fund (JCRF) The Juvenile Crime Reduction Fund, overseen by the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), was established in 1984 to assist existing Prevention efforts and programs and to help establish new Prevention programs in the state of Arizona. This fund provides "seed money" to get these programs out of the planning phase and into the communities. The JCRF receives its funding from the Criminal Justice Enhancement Fund (CJEF), as outlined in Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) 41-2401(d)5, entitling the JCRF to 9.35% of the total CJEF fund for the fiscal year. CJEF receives its funding through fines, forfeitures and other collected court-related fees pursuant to A.R.S. 12-116.0 1. JCRF shares this pool of funding dollars with fifteen other entities. Applications for JCRF funding are sent out each year to measure the progress of continuing Prevention programs and to determine the programs' grant funding for the following fiscal year. Continuing programs are evaluated based on their budgetary and program goals for the upcoming year, and how they performed against their budgetary and program goals fiom the previous year. A team of JCRF Specialists reviews the completed applications and then determines the level of funding for the upcoming year. The Prevention programs requesting JCRF funding are actively involved in this process and have the opportunity to receive assistance fiom AOC in adjusting their programs to meet the requirements or standards of the JCRF Review Committee. All programs that receive JCRF funding must submit mid-year progress reports to measure progress in reaching goals previously established in their application for JCRF funding. These progress reports are reviewed and assessed by the JCRF Review Committee to determine if the program is meeting its target in terms of juveniles served and budget expended. While these progress reports help in determining the advancement and growth of the funded Prevention programs, they do not measure the outcomes for juveniles served by these programs. Programs must perform outcome measures independently if they hope to determine the outcomes of their services. New programs may apply for JCRF fhding by submitting an application including their proposed budget, program and staffing plans and details about the target population and needs the program intends to -fill. Collectively, the reviewed and approved applications for funding grants developed by the JCRF funding reviewers form the overall JCRF funding packet which outlines how the total JCRF funding should be apportioned for the year. This packet is reviewed and approved by the AOCIJuvenile Justice Services Division (JJSD) Director and the Chief Justice. I Section 4 Prevention Page 4 7 - Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report Deloitte Consulting DRAFT ABP - I (Continued) For new Prevention programs approved for JCRF funding, the award is typically offered as a three-year declining grant. During the JCRF funding period, providers are encouraged to locate and assisted in obtaining other permanent funding sources for long-term success. Examples of Prevention programs currently receiving JCRF funding in the state of Arizona are illustrated in the table below. Accept the Challenge in Maricopa County Act NOW Truancy Program in Pirna County Alternative to Suspension in Pirna County Big Brothers & Big Sisters in Navajo County Center for Juvenile Alternatives in Yavapai County Creative Alternatives for Youth in Maricopa County Desert Venture 1998 in Pirna County Family-BasedAltematives/Shelter in Coconino County Gang Mediation Project in Pinal County KIDS LAW in Pima County Law for Kids Website in Arizona Maximizing My Potential in Maricopa County Phoenix Violence Prevention Initiative in Maricopa County Project LEARN in Arizona Project Health Choices in Pirna County Project SOAR in Maricopa County Project SOAR in Pirna County Summer P.A. Y. in Maricopa County Youth & Family Resource Project in Arizona Current Programs and Strategies in Arizona Prevention programs in Arizona come in many shapes and sizes and may include one or many of the following components: Classes; Sports and recreation; Youth employment; Conflict intervention and resolution; Youth clubs; Mentoring; Advertising campaigns;-and Parental support groups. There are a wide variety of Prevention programs at work in Arizona. Each of the fifteen counties in Arizona has promising Prevention programs, created to serve diverse populations throughout the state. These programs seek to reduce juvenile criminal Section 4 Prevention Page 4 8 - Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report Deloitte Consulting DRAFT involvement by actively engaging youths in activities that work directly or indirectly to build positive social skills and create awareness of the consequences of delinquent behavior. Exhibit 4-2 below provides a representative sample of Prevention programs overseen by County Probation Departments. These programs are made available to children throughout the rural and urban areas of Arizona. Although these programs individually contribute to delinquency prevention in the counties in which they exist, little measurable outcome data was available for their level of success. Exhibit 4-2 In addition to the efforts of the counties' efforts, the Governor's Division for Children (GDFC), in partnership with the Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission (AJJC), offers a wide variety of services for Arizona's children. In fact, the "mission of the GDFC is to promote and advance the strength and well-being of Arizona's children and families." The goal of GDFC is to provide a single strong voice for children from within the executive branch of state government. The GDFC is also charged with serving as the interagency coordinator for all children, youth and family programs within the ~tate."~ Section 4 Prevention Page 4 - 9 Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report Deloitte Consulting DRAFT The Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission (AJJC) is a State Advisory Group, recently reestablished by the Governor. It is tasked with the following juvenile justice system responsibilities: Participate in the development of the State Plan (for federal funding); Advise the Governor and the Legislature on juvenile justice issues; Review and comment on grant proposals; and Monitor programs. The AJJC has a membership of between 15 and 34 members with the following characteristics: Twenty percent of the members must be under age 24; Three members who have been or shall currently be under the jurisdiction of the juvenile justice system; and A majority of the members shall not be full-time government employees (including the Chairperson). The GDFC and AJJC currently collaborate to sponsor and fund Prevention programs (and other services) across the state including: Before and after school programs; Summer youth programs; Youth leadership programs and projects; Coordinated statewide planning for children and families; Technical assistance, training and workshops; and Early childhood programs. Programs and partnerships are facilitated by these entities through Title I1 and Title V Federal grants. The two tables on the following page include examples of these programs and partnerships. Section 4 Prevention Page 4 - 10 Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report Deloitte Consulting DRAFT Programs Community Excellence ProjectMulticultural EffectivenessTraining (MET) Open-Inn, Inc.-Crisis / Shelter Services St. Anthony of Padua Catholic Church White Mountain Apache Tribe Kyrene School District-Summer Academy Phoenix Indian Center-Osborn Middle School Learning Circle Project City of Tucson, Parks and Recreation Big Brothers & Big Sisters of YumaProject Developing Educational & Vocational Opportunities to Excel (DEVOTE) Big Brothers & Big Sisters of NortheasternArizona Development-Royal Palm Outreach Project Arizona's Children AssociationAdolescent Resource Center Lake Havasu Social Services Parents Anonymous of Arizona, Inc. Westwood Community Association Westmar~Truancy Prevention Partnership Open-Inn, Inc.-Alternative Center for Family-Based Services San Carlos Apache Tribe-Apache Youth Arts Program Native American Community Health Center, Inc.-Adolescent Care and Cultural Enhancement (ACCE) Red Road Project Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community-The Young River Peoples Youth Council Pima County of Governments - Center for Juvenile Alternatives Town of Queen Creek-Sports ProgramsNouth EmploymentISelf Esteem Program Mohave County Attorney's Office-Boys and Girls Clubs of the Colorado RiverComprehensive Teen Program City of Tempe-Intensive Parent and Families Support Services City of Casa Grande-Plans for a branch of the Boys & Girls Club Pinal County Parks, Recreation & Fairgrounds City of Scottsdale in partnership with New Foundation, LINKS and Scottsdale Police Department Pima County Attorney's Oftice-Truancy Intervention Program Support Yuma County Juvenile Court in partnership with the Yuma County Library, Arizona Children's Home Association, and the Boys and Girls Club of Yuma Beginning in August, 1998, the GDFC and AJJS began the process of more effectively coordinating programs by soliciting services that cross four different funding sources, including those described above. The intent of this approach is to help communities develop coordinated and comprehensive programs without the barriers of individual funding source limitations and focus. We believe this is an excellent step in encouraging coordination and collaboration at the community level. As illustrated above there are a number programs at work in Arizona striving to minimize the occurrences of juvenile crime. A detailed description of these programs may be obtained by contacting the individual counties' juvenile court personnel who oversee these programs, or the Governor's Division for Children. Section 4 Prevention Page 4 - 11 Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report Deloitte Consulting |
