Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
0
Table of Contents
Section
Executive Summary Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4 Section 5 Section 6 Section 7 Section 8 Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Introduction Methodology Juvenile Justice System Structure and Stakeholders Prevention
1nten.ention
Page
ES- 1
Secure Care Post-Secure Care Core Findings and Recommendations Providers Visited Site Visit Summaries Recidivism Analysis Summaries
Table o f Contents
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
Executive Summary
This report includes the findings and recommendations developed during the evaluation of the Arizona juvenile justice system conducted by Deloitte Consulting on behalf of the Arizona State Legislature. 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 of the management and organizational structures of the Arizona juvenile justice system, and the associated recommendations for improving the management of the delivery of juvenile justice services in Arizona.
We believe the methodology employed in this review offers Arizona an efficient and effective approach to identifying the outcomes and cost effectiveness of its juvenile justice programs. At the beginning of the project we put forth a set of desired conditions of operations that were developed from our 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. Once the desired conditions were tailored to Arizona, we used these conditions as our benchmark to conduct our assessment of the Arizona juvenile justice system through: A review of relevant Arizona legislation; Interviews with key Arizona judicial, legislative and executive branch leaders; Interviews with key stakeholders within the juvenile justice system; 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;
a
Focus groups involving representatives of the key leaders and stakeholders in the Arizona juvenile justice system; and
Executive Summary
Page ES 1
-
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
Completion and presentation of the final report.
Many entities have a role in influencing and serving 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-1
Families Communities PrivateIPubiic Partnerships Counties and Cities County Attorneys ADE and Schools Local and State Law Enforcement The Coutl Gov.'s Division for Children ADHWHS Economic Security
. . . . . . .
9
Families Communities Law Enforcement Counties and Cities The Courts Treatmenti Consequence Providers Education and Schoois Local and State Law Enforcement ADHSIBHS County Attorneys ADES
Families ADJC County Juvenile Detention Facilities
Families Communities ADJC. Conditional Liberty
. . . . . .
*-
Adult Pamle Adult Probation County Jail
There are two primary 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 Ofices of the Court, Juvenile Justice Services Division (AOCIJJSD); Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections (ADJC); and the fifteen County Superior Court Juvenile Probation Departments. Additional major stakeholders in the system include law enforcement agencies, County Attorneys, Juvenile Court Judges, treatment providers, the Arizona Department of Education (ADE), the Arizona Department of Economic Security (ADES), and the Arizona Department of Health Services, Behavioral Health Services (ADHSBHS). The primary agencies in the system each operate on independent computer systems that uniquely identify the youth or family. As a result, significant effort is required to match youth from the juvenile justice system to ADE, ADES or ADHSBHS. Overall the state of Arizona has no efficient or effective way to track juveniles across state systems.
Executive Summary
Page ES 2
-
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
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, then warned and released. Another 34% were diverted from prosecution through programs such as Teen Court and unpaid community work. In other words, the County Attorneys did not prosecute 63% of the juveniles entering the system for a crime. 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 assigned Standard or Intensive Probation or placed in Secure Care. These youth are the focus of most of the attention and resources in the juvenile justice system. AOCIJJSD provides administrative support and oversight for the county juvenile justice systems in the following programs:
Diversion, Standard Probation, lntensive Probation, and Treatment Services.
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. 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. The AOCIJJSD total expenditures for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1997, were approximately $43 million funded with state appropriations. The state appropriated funds, administered by AOCIJJSD and the 15 counties, were used to provide services to approximately 50,000 children in the juvenile justice system. The average annual costs and comparative national averages for the major components of the AOCIJJSD structure are summarized below.
Arizona Averane
Standard Probation Intensive Probation Treatment $1,247 $4,900 $ 453
National Averaae
$803 to $2,555 $2,719 to $5,913 Not Available
Due to the variability of treatment levels and the accounting for treatment-related costs throughout the nation, we were unable to obtain reliable and comparable national averages. ADJC is responsible for the state Secure Care facilities including:
Adobe Mountain, Black Mountain,
Executive Summary
Page ES 3
-
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report Catalina Mountain, Encanto, Buckeye, Rincon Temporary Diagnostic Unit, and Boot Camp.
Deloitte Consulting
ADJC is also responsible for Post-Secure Care designed to insure appropriate transition back into the community, including Conditional Liberty and related programs and services. ADJC directly provides the majority of services through its own programs and employees, however, it contracts with private providers to administer some Treatment programs. The ADJC total expenditures, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1997, were approximately $53 million, funded primarily by state appropriations. During the same year, the ADJC supervised approximately 700 youth on any given day in Secure Care. The average length of incarceration is approximately 2 11 days for each juvenile with the annualized 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 annualized cost of $42,707. 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. The average length of time a youth spends in the Conditional Liberty Program is approximately 200 days. Due to the variability of treatment levels and the accounting for treatment-related costs throughout the nation, we were unable to obtain reliable and comparable national averages. However, we did note that the annual Conditional Liberty costs were approximately 27% higher than the annualized costs of Intensive Probation services per juvenile at AOCIJJSD of $4,900. This difference appears reasonable given the individuals being served. In Arizona, County Probation Departments operate under the authority of the Presiding Juvenile Court Judge 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.
Executive Summary
Page ES 4
-
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
The County Attorney's Offices, Judges and Juvenile Probation Departments in each county are 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 contribute approximately $23 million, or roughly 27% 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. 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 AOC and ADJC. 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: Not be a completely effective, collaborative service continuum, Be no unified approach to performance and outcome measures, and Be no overall capacity to determine what works and what does not work.
The components of the 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 areas which includes a description of the component, analysis of what type of juveniles are involved, a description of key stakeholders, 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.
Executive Summary
Page ES - 5
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
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 found in all 15 Arizona counties, vary significantly 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.
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 quantify 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: Identifying 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"; Identifying areas of unmet need;
Execuf/veSummary
Page ES 6
-
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
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: Due to 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 fund 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 coordinating committee 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. Arizona should require basic program data to be collected by all state funded Prevention programs, and develop outcome measures to assess the value of its Prevention programs. Arizona delinquency prevention programs appear uncoordinated, do not fully involve families, and do not utilize outcome measures to determine what works and what does not work. Investment in delinquency prevention should continue, but the aforementioned three issues must be addressed.
Interwentian
Unlike Prevention, Intervention focuses on delinquent behavior after it has been exhibited. 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.
Ekecutive Summary
Page ES 7
-
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
Probation Officers 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.
The goal of diversion is to direct youth away from formal court proceedings by assigning a set of consequences, which if successfully completed, result in avoidance of further court action. Diversion referrals come from the police, schools and parents. Only youth who acknowledge responsibility for their actions are eligible. Chronic felony offenders, violent felony offenders and those 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 diverted youth. The Probation Officer has the discretion to determine 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. Community-Based Alternative Programs (CBAPs) focus on involving youth's peers and community in assigning consequences for delinquent acts. These programs include Teen Court and Community Justice Committees. The Teen Court has proven to be successful in Pima and Maricopa counties and has achieved a low recidivism rate. Diversion is funded through state appropriations administered by the AOC and, in many cases, County General fund dollars. The AOC funds Diversion consequences based on a formula-driven capitation rate. The amount for fiscal year 1998, the first year of funding the revised Diversion program was $126 per juvenile, scheduled to increase to $160 for fiscal year 1999. Counties incur and fund costs in excess of the state capitated amount.
In our review of Diversion, we have compiled the following significant findings:
. .
Diversion is a cost-effective program. Low recidivism justify the investment.
Ekecuthreb Summary
Page ES 8
-
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
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: Continue to develop and refine Diversion programs throughout the state. Develop standardized performance and outcome measures for implementation across all Diversion programs. Increase family involvement in Diversion programs. Clarify definitions of diversion and prevention. Diversion is cost-effective in the context of serving juveniles as a less expensive alternative to Probation, however, standardized performance and outcome measures must be implemented for all Diversion programs, and family involvement must be increased.
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 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 Supervision (JIPS) for serious or high risk offenders.
Executive Summary
Page ES 9
-
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
In addition to the regular supervision of the Probation Officer, juveniles may be required to participate in one of the following:
Restitution, Community Service, Victim Reconciliation, Drug Testing, and Treatment.
Standard Probation is funded partially through State Aid for Probation and partially through the County General Fund on an approximate 50150 basis. The total cost for fiscal year 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 per day for Standard Probation. Juvenile Intensive Probation Supervision is 100% funded by AOC. The fiscal year 1997 statewide costs 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 cost 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 per 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 beginning with fiscal year 1999. 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.
0
AOC and County Probation Departments have begun to develop performance and outcome measurements. There is limited information on the effectiveness of Treatment programs.
Execuffve Summary
Page ES 10
-
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
There appears to be difficulty in engaging the family 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, outlining barriers and identifying additional tools necessary to overcome those barriers. 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. Probation appears to be cost-effective and JIPS is far more cost-effective than Secure Care, however family involvement must be increased, and a single information system must be developed that will allow for performance and outcome measurement.
Treatment
The goal of treatment is to teach juveniles to be productive, law-abiding members of their community. Treatment can include 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 delinquent 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 funded almost exclusively by state appropriations. The AOCIJJSD has made a significant effort to ensure that the youths in the juvenile system receive effective, timely treatment in a culturally sensitive environment through contracted private service providers. AOC has developed an exemplary service procurement process.
However, other than client satisfaction surveys, there is no process in place at this time to determine what does and does not work in treatment services, but AOC has recently begun to take action in this area.
Executive Summary
Page ES 11
-
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
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, coordinationneedscollaboration among the participants in the and delivery of treatment services improvement.
Based on our findings, we offer the following significant recommendations:
High staff turnover rates among service providers are impacting the delivery of treatment services.
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 there are service gaps. AOC should take the lead in creating fiscal and program incentives to encourage the elimination of barriers to collaborative service delivery. Arizona makes a significant investment in treatment services, but currently, there is no way to determine what does and does not work, due to the absence of meaningful performance and outcome measures.
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, and the youth's court history and social history. Juveniles may be held in detention for the following: 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 12
-
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
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 each county is not available due to the 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 provide adequate 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 counties use the Detention Risk Assessment Score Form (DRAF), a scoring instrument used to determine detention or release of a juvenile. The tool is only successfully used half the time and in Maricopa County has a 50% override rate, as compared to the national standard of less than 15%. The county Detention system as a whole lacks standard performance and outcome measures. It should be noted that standards have been developed and are currently under review by the Directors of Juvenile Court Services. Based on our findings, we offer the following significant recommendations: Complete the process started by the Directors of Juvenile Court Services and implement the standards with outcome measures consistent across the state.
.
AOC should work with the counties to improve Detention risk assessment tools. AOC should work with the counties to enhance the consistency of detention accounting procedures.
To sum up the priorities, Arizona detention facilities are cost effective in the context of other states' detention costs and other Arizona institutional costs, however the detention system lacks standard performance and outcome measures.
State Insfifutiians
The role of ADJC is to provide care, supervision, rehabilitation, treatment and education in a secure environment to those juveniles committed to its jurisdiction. ADJC is designed to enhance public protection by reducing the possibility of juveniles re-
Executive Summary
Page ES 13
-
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
offending. As with other juvenile justice systems, Arizona's state 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: 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 and Encanto are the most expensive with daily costs of $175 and $162 per day respectively. Because 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. ADJC could gather more information by simply asking AOC for specific data related to recidivism. 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 resulting from Proposition 102 and subsequent enabling legislation; and A projected 19% increase in the 8 to 17 year old age group between 1998 and
Executive Summary
Page ES 14
-
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
Recent mandatory minimum sentencing legislation makes it more difficult for ADJC to manage the length of stay of for each juvenile. 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. 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 significant 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 of 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 Departments 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 variances between the State Institutions to determine if the cost differentials are 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 AOC/JJSD, ADES, ADHS, ADE, local agencies and community organizations to insure that children and youth are receiving all necessary services. ADJC leads the state in developing performance and outcome measures, however, a complete analysis of recidivism and a determination of cost effectiveness is not feasible without linking the ADJC YouthBase and JOLTS information system.
*
Post-Secure Care, also referred to as Parole or Conditional Liberty in Arizona, is the postincarceration 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
EkecutEve Summary
Page ES 15
-
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
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 supervisejuveniles released from Secure Care and help them make the transition back to their home and community. In 1998, ADJC adopted the Graduated Continuum of Care Model. The goal of this 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 counties. 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 with service providers 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 approximately $15.6 million. The estimated average annual cost of Conditional Liberty is $6,247 per youth, which includes the Supervision and Continuum of Care tracks, as well as the Treatment component. Arizona falls 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.
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 the successful transition of juveniles into the community, but also enhances public protection.
EkecutEve Summary
Page ES 16
-
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
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 supervising parole officers and reducing burnout. Although collaboration between ADJC and the public schools needs improvement, new approaches to Conditional Liberty have begun to increase cooperation. The fact that the fundamentals of identifying performance and outcome measures have been completed is very encouraging. 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. If the model is deemed effective, it should be expanded to other populations. Collaboration and communication must be ongoing between all the stakeholders in the Arizona juvenile justice service continuum. The Post-Secure Care process appears to do a good job in involving families. Unfortunately, more work is needed to increase the level of collaboration for service delivery, and have to continue to focus on a single information system and the implementation of performance and outcome measurements.
Core Rndings 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. They have such a significant impact on the system that they warrant special attention by those policy makers and stakeholders 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:
Involvement of Families, Collective Ownership through use of Outcomes and Performance measures, Collaboration, and Joint Technology Support.
!nvoIv8n?afftof FamIlI~s
The community is essential in deterring juvenile crime, and will be addressed in our final core issues. However here the focus is on the role of the family. Usually, the family is the stakeholder:
Executive Summary
Page ES 17
-
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
Closest to the juvenile, Has the most contact with the juvenile, At times, is the most influential with the 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 likely 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 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. Also, JOLTS captures very little family data. There appears to be an attempt at engaging the family in parts of the system, however barriers exist which prevent the system from succeeding. Those barriers include a lack of interest from the family, lack of transportation and economic conditions. Judges and other stakeholders have attempted to address these barriers by ordering parents into jail or requiring their participation in counseling or classes. ADJC has recently begun to place more emphasis on engaging the family early and frequently in the process. But outcome data is not currently sufficient enough at ADJC to "test" the theory that the engagement of the youth's family early and frequently 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 "youth/incident" to a "family" focus approach. Our recommendations include the following: 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 upon 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.
a
Executive Summary
Page ES 18
-
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
Probation and Parole Officers should continue to conduct family assessments much like those done in the Conditional Liberty programs operated by ADJC. All results and information about the family, their social and economic status and other special needs or considerations should be documented in the case file and appropriate information systems. 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.
CoNecltive Qwnership by Use of Qutcomes
The juvenile justice continuum, as it is currently designed, has a number of automatic "hand-offs" 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 in the process, 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 youth are in more than one system. This is why there continues to be a debate in Arizona about creating a "children's agency" to encourage a more collaborative, "holistic" approach to developing solutions for these 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, with shared resources and funds and as equal partners. Our recommendations are: The Governor, Legislature and Judiciary 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.
O r proposal is that Arizona, through leadership of the Arizona Juvenile Justice u
Committee and with the cooperation of the juvenile justice system, attempt to address the challenge 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.
ExecutEve Summary
Page ES 19
-
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report Develop action plans. Implement action plans. Remove barriers. Achieve targeted performance. Receive and invest incentives earned for performance.
Deloitte Consulting
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 levels. Further, the juvenile justice system in Arizona is working. 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. 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.
CoIIabomtkn
In the context of the planning, funding, 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 funding limits, the specific service system culture and the professional practice values that usually are prevalent in any single service system;
Executive Summary
Page ES 20
-
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
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. However, 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 ADHSBHS. 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 framework for coordination and collaboration. An example of such a set of principles can be found in the state of Washington. The Family Policy Principles are an eloquent and compelling statutory commitment to vulnerable children and their families. Our recommendations include the following: Arizona should develop statutory policy principles that can guide future policy decisions and the delivery of comprehensive services to 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 in which the primary focus is the improvement of coordination and collaborative service delivery.
An entity, similar to the Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission, should be authorized to be 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.
Executive Summary
Page ES 21
-
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
Joint Technology Suppart
As we have established in the previous discussions on collaboration, free and easy exchange of information and data is a requirement to achieve the full value of collaboration. Data forms the foundation for all measurements of outcomes. The more information that can be gathered with the help of automation, the more likely outcomes will be measured and utilized. 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. Due to the fact that the data was already out of date by the time the match was shared (Since 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. Overall, 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 creates a daily electronic file from JOLTS to pass to the ADJC YouthBase system that contains the offense history of the 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 rural counties. In these cases, the information is exchanged manually. Further, it should be noted, that this data exchange is currently one way. AOC provides information to ADJC, but does not receive any information in return. Given this lack of ability to exchange data, it 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. Nor can outcomes be measured practically when multiple systems are involved.
AWC 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 and/or failure of the youth. ADJC hopes to have this work completed by fiscal year 1999. Once ADJC is fully automated, they will begin the
Executive Summary
Page ES 22
-
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
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
JOLTS, AOC's automation system, is used by AOCIJJSD and all 15 counties to record information and status regarding juveniles. JOLTS is also used to manage Probation caseloads. There are currently three versions of JOLTS operating on separate automation platforms. Maricopa County operates one JOLTS system. Pima County operates yet another version of JOLTS. AOCIJJSD operates the third version of JOLTS which supports the rural counties. Information is input into the systems by the counties and periodically validated by AOCIJJSD. There is a wealth of information in the system, however there are gaps in certain data. For example, we were frequently told that social functioning and educational advancement were strong signals of Treatment success. However, while JOLTS has the capacity to capture this information, we found little or none of this data recorded. The system was once recognized as one of the finest juvenile court information systems in the country and has served the needs of the state well. 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 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 when trying to tie data together for outcome or cost analysis and also increases the complexity of data exchange. AOC's strategic direction for JOTLS is to move towards one automation platform with a graphical user interface (i.e., easy to use screens). Further, as noted in our case file reviews, the JOLTS system does maintain key information about the juvenile. What is does not maintain is information 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). The system does allow for, and is used for, contact notes from the Probation Officers. However, additional information would add to the richness of data available on each juvenile. 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 programs with pre-determined performance and outcome measures.
,
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.
Executive Summary
Page ES 23
-
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
Our recommendations are: Although AOCIJJSD continues to move toward gathering more comprehensive information about the youth in the Arizona juvenile justice system, critical data from other entities (e.g., ADJC, ADHSBHS and ADES) is 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 ADHSIBHS need 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 middleware. Given the status of development of the YouthBase system at ADJC, it may be possible that it could serve as the technical model for 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, meaningful and consistent data to allow the basis for effective performance and outcome measurement.
Next Steps
In order to implement the recommendations outlined in this report, a number of steps must be taken. Many of the recommendations included in Sections 3 through 7can be achieved without legislative action and can be accomplished by the responsible agency. The core recommendations outlined in Section 8 will likely require Executive, Legislative and Judicial leadership, direction and oversight, as well as funding. It would then be the responsibility of the agencies in the state to implement changes that reflect the direction established by the leadership of these policymaking bodies. Given the breadth of the recommendations in the core areas, our focus here in the Executive Summary is on the steps required to implement these recommendations.
lnvdve Familias
The following steps should be taken to address family invalvement in the overall system:
Ide~ti@ barriers to increased family involvement i the process through a working n p u p comprised af Judges, AOC, ADJC, County Probation Departments and
providers.
Executive Summary
Page ES 24
-
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
*
Formulute action plans to address identified barriers. These plans may address additional funding needs or legislative changes necessary to engage the families more fully. ImpIeme~t policy changes at the legislative level and begin tracking the outcomes of those policies at the agency level. This step may take significant investment in time in order to bring about meaningful participation fmm the families.
Collective Ownership by Use of Outcomes
The following high-level steps would need to be completed to implement this approach: Adopt outcomes. We suggest that the Legislature consider adopting the following statewide outcome measures: The juvenile crime rate by county with comparable national data; The number and percentage of youth in custody who are repeat offenders; The number and percentage of those repeat offenders who showed an increase in the seriousness of offense; The amount of time elapsed before the juveniles re-arrest; The number and percentage of youth who leave the system who are in school or employed; The percentage of those who receive GED or a high school diploma; and The number and percentage of youth who continue use of alcohol or controlled substances. Legislatively establish statewide annual andfive-year targets, then allocate them to each county. AOC, ADJC, the County Probation Department and the Juvenile Court would all have the same target. Winning for one is winning for all. Develop baseline measures for each outcome by means of interagency cooperation. At the agency level, engage a mix of management and staff of all agencies involved in becoming the outcome champions. These champions will be responsible for driving the outcome education process. Once agencies have completed educating the outcome champions, they should engage mixed teams of management and staff from all agencies involved to develop action plans that will guide them in achieving the established targets for each outcome. This plan should also include a plan for how the incentive received as a result of achieving the plan will be invested in the juvenile justice system. This may be for combined agency activities to programs that met special needs of the youth and their families involved in this system. [Note: Our experience in Oklahoma suggests that the success of
this process will depend on using outcomes to earn more resources versus using them to penalize poor results.]
e
Agencies should then implement action plans.
Excscuth Summary
Page ES 25
-
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
Agencies must include in their action plans a plan for investment of incentives received. Incentives received as a result of achieving the plan should be invested in the juvenile justice system. Incentives may be for combined agency activities to programs that met special needs of the youth and their families involved in this system. [Note: Our experience in Oklahoma suggests that the success of this process will
depend on using outcomes to earn more resources versus using them to penalize poor results.]
All branches of government must work together to remove barriers to achieving results. All agencies must work together to achieve targeted outcome measures. Agencies receive and invest incentives earned for performance.
To build and enhance collaboration within the juvenile justice system, the following must occur: The Legislature and agencies should study and develop statutory policy principles that can guide future policy decisions and the delivery of comprehensive services to children and their families.
*
. The Legislature shouldJuvenile Justiceauthorize a statewide coordinating committee, establish and similar to the Arizona Commission, to be responsible for
coordination and technical support for Arizona regional and local delinquency Prevention efforts. Require ADJC and AOCIJJSD to strongly consider pooling their resources to solve the rural problem of insufficient services available in their communities.
The Legislature 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.
Joint Technotogy Support
In order to implement the recommendations in this arm, the legislature should:
.
Canvcane a committee of agency representatives to develop a strategic systems plan to
address the overdl needs of the Arizona juvenile justice system. Much work has already been done in this area with regards to children-specific systems. This committee could capitalize on much of this work. Agencies should thenfindize strategic plan and prioritize identified projects within that plm. The Legislature should then *nrijj,fin&ng for investment in a centralized juvenile justice data warehouse or new juvenile justice system. Funding for a new system needs to be appropriated for the design and construction of this system.
Executive Summary
Page ES 26
-
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
T h u g h an effort coordinated by the agencies, design system requirements and begin the development process.
Conclusion
It is our assessment 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 system? Yes. 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 so 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, and are at the highest risk of becoming life-long dependents (e.g., in the adult corrections, social services or mental health services) in 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 charge and help to remove any barriers to its success.
Executive Summary
Page ES 27
-
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consultinq
lntroduction
The Juvenile Justice Committee of the Arizona State Legislature (the Committee) selected Deloitte & Touche Consulting Group (Deloitte Consulting) as the contractor to conduct an evaluation of all agencies that provide services to juveniles who are diverted from prosecution in Arizona juvenile courts or who are adjudicated 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 which has encompassed the following two areas: The performance, with an emphasis on outcome measures, of all 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 evaluation and the associated tasks as set forth in our proposal to the Committee, Deloitte Consulting is submitting our final report, which includes recommendations concerning improvements in the performance and cost effectiveness of all agencies included in the scope of this evaluation.
The Arizona Juvenile Justice Committee designated a Project Coordinator, Representative Tom Smith, who has served as the key contact for our team. In this role the Project Coordinator was a significant contributor to the project and assisted the team 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, every committee meeting, as well as special meetings and focus groups. Representative Smith has represented the committee honorably by his commitment, his forthright guidance, his participation and his unwavering drive to do the right thing for Arizona.
Section 7
Introduction
Page 1 - 1
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Re~ort
Deloitte Consultinq
Other Significant Contributors to this Project
As with all evaluations of this nature, it is in the State's best interest that the review team is dealt with openly and honestly to ensure that they have the best information available to help Arizona build a better juvenile justice system. There are a number of persons who went above and beyond in supporting the project activities in a manner that clearly indicates their interest in improving the Arizona juvenile justice system. These persons include:
Honorable William OINeill, Pinal County Superior Court Jesus Diaz, Pinal County Juvenile Probation Donna Noriega, Administrative Office of the Courts - Juvenile Justice Services Division Bobbie Chinsky, AOC - JJSD Cherie Townsend, Maricopa County Juvenile Probation David Gasper, Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections John Barrett, Maricopa County Juvenile Probation Judy Strahler, Pima County Juvenile Probation
Their help and support strengthened the quality of this report.
a
In addition to these individuals, there were countless numbers of persons that contributed to the success of this project including:
39 Providers of Treatment Service to the juvenile justice system, 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 work from all involved. The cooperation and participation of all those noted above have made this report of higher quality for Arizona..
&tr@ue:tr'on t@the Remainder 9P this Report
We believe the methodology employed on this evaluation project offered Arizona an efficient and effective approach to identifying the outcomes and cost effectiveness of Arizona's juvenile justice programs. Our work focused on the identification of strengths and weaknesses in the management and organizational structures of the juvenile justice system by assessing those positive attributes and core problems not previously identified in other studies, and by validating findings obtained from other studies. By doing so, we maximized the result of our efforts and minimized the resource impact on the juvenile justice programs.
Section I
Introduction
Page 1 2
-
This approach allowed us to focus more attention on the development of specific recommendations, which will ultimately allow the Committee to implement visible and lasting improvements. The results of this evaluation study and associated recommendations can be 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 Major Stakeholders Prevention Intervention Secure Care Post-Incarceration Core Findings and Recommendations
The following section on Approach and Methodology sets forth some basic premises and conditions upon which we based our approach. We have developed these standards through our extensive experience and analysis in the areas of juvenile justice organizational structure, management and administrative practices, systems of care and community integration. We recognize that every juvenile justice system is unique and that all of our assumptions will not necessarily apply, however, we do believe that many of the basic 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 Consultinq
Section 2
Introduction
Approach and Methodology
Our experience in evaluating these types of programs indicates that they are always more complicated than they appear on the surface, due to the required interface and interaction of multiple providers and agencies. This is clearly the case in the Arizona juvenile justice system. Our first step was to review relevant Arizona legislation. With this background information, we identified a comprehensive list of individuals with whom we felt it critical to conduct our initial interviews. A summary list of these individuals included:
Juvenile Justice Committee Co-Chairpersons and Other Members, Two Representatives of the Juvenile Court Judges, Two Representatives of 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 those contacted in the initial interviews was included in the June 18 deliverable to the Committee.]
The purpose of the interviews we conducted with the above individuals was to: Validate our understanding of program service delivery, Identify a comprehensive list of service providers, and Identify key persons to conduct additional interviews or focus group sessions with to complete the budget and expense framework, the continuum of service framework, the outcome goals, and the desired conditions for operations. Using the information gathered and other research conducted, we identified programs that receive juvenile justice funding and we identified juveniles "eligible" for services. Using this approach as our starting point, 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 using this information was a comprehensive list of service providers. Finally, we used the information gathered by these processes to develop the site visit interview and information gathering guides, as
Section 2
Approach and Methodology
Page 2 - 1
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Re~ort
Deloitte Consultinq
well as the site visit plan. [Note: All of 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 represent the essential elements that are critical to the successful operation of juvenile justice programs. We have tailored this framework to the specific conditions of Arizona juvenile justice programs ascertained from information gathered in the above referenced interviews. Once these tasks were completed, we conducted site visits. The first group included in the site visits were 39 Treatment agencies that deliver consequences and provide services to juveniles who were diverted from prosecution in Arizona Juvenile courts or who are adjudicated delinquent or incorrigible. These treatment agencies were selected by all providers by dollars earned from AOC andlor ADJC contracts (including SPOC purchases) for FY 1997. We selected all providers with over $90,000 in revenues for the year. The group of Treatment providers selected for site visits receives approximately 90% of the treatment funds spent by the AOC on an annual basis. The site visits for these treatment agencies consisted of the following activities: Interviews with agency management and key staff. Review of contract compliance. Review of licensing or other complaints, if any. Review of 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. Case file reviews of a management sample of closed cases 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. 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. Other sites visited as part of this evaluation were all County Probation and three of five Conditional Liberty Offices were visited. Additionally, we visited every county detention facility and interviewed 13 of 15 county attorneys or their designees and a number of
Section 2 Approach and Methodology
Page 2 2
-
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Re~ort
Deloitte Consulting
other significant parties at the county level were also interviewed. 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,
Case file reviews of a management sample of closed cases 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, Data gathered in these site visit interviews and reviews was analyzed and evaluated with our 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:
Representativesof the Juvenile Justice Committee, Representativesof the Juvenile Court Judges, Representativesof the Juvenile Probation Departments, Representativesof the Treatment Providers, Representativesof 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.
-
In these sessions, we reviewed some of our preliminary findings from the interviews, documentation review, financial management analysis and site visits. The participants in the focus groups provided constructive feedback on the analysis, and presented their insights on what they would view to be appropriate recommendations for Arizona, given these findings.
Section 2
Approach and Methodology
Page 2 3
-
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consultinq
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. The final step in the project has been to prepare this final 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 Service Continuum. These include:
Major Stakeholders, Prevention, Diversion, Consequences, Secure Care, and Post-Incarceration.
Each section includes a description of findings and recommendations that are associated with this part of the service continuum. The final section of this report identifies the Core Findings and Recommendations. We believe these core recommendations have implications for 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
Section 3
Juvenile Justice System Structure and Stakehalders
Juvenire Justice Sptem 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.
Exhibit 3- 1
Services
Primary Prevention
:
Fam~ly Community Groups Big Brothers1Scster.s Churches * -. BoysKj~rls Club ' Other Communcty Groups Arczona Department of Educatmn Safe Schools DARE -. Other Department of Educatmn Programs Probatton Law Enforcement Admincstratiw Offcce of the courts JCRFFunded Programs Governors Office for Children Behaworal Health Serwces and Department of Economic Security Healthy Start + Head Start Kids Care Other S e ~ c e s Juvenile Court CASA FCRB (at AOC) . Dependency
-
..
Intervention
Admcnlstrative Off~ceof the courts JCRF Funded Programs Arczona Department of Educabon Safe Schools -. Other Department of Education Programs County Juvenile Probabon Secure Care -. Out of Home Care EducationlVocatconal Tracnlng -. Day & Evencng Support -. Counselcng EvaluationlAssessment Supervinon Diversion Community Work -. Vcct~m Reswut~on Teen Court Local and State Law Enforcement Behaworal Health Outof Home CareITreatment Counseling -. EvaluatmnlAssessment Other Behavioral Health Serwces County Attorneys DES -. Placement Foster Care
Incarceration
PostIncarceration
:
Adult
Department of Conections Adu A Parole dun Probation County Jail
.:-
-
.. :
-
.. . -.
.. ..
-
Department of Juvenile Department of Juvenile Corrections Parole Correctmns Out of Home Care Secure Care -. EducationlVocational -. EducatconlVocatconal Training Tracncng Counselcng -. Day & Evening + Eval /Assessment support -. Counseling Recreatcon -. Medccal S ~ N ~ C ~ S County Juven~le Detemon County Probation Facllcbes Secure Care . Out of Home Care -. EducatconlVocatconal EducationlVocational Training Tra~n~ng -. Counseling Day & Evening Eval./Assessment Support Counseling -. Recreat~on Medccal Services
-
-
-
-
-
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
juvenile justice system. Some of these are publicly funded, while others are not. They include:
The juvenile and their 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. Exhibit 3-2, on the following page, 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
Exhibit 3-2 Juvenile Justice (JJ) State (Appropriated and Non-Appropriated) and County Expenditures
-
Year Ended June 30,1997 Source: AOC, AWC, JLBC
I
I# JuBcbrv- Superior Cwrt:
B Dapatnmnt ot Juvenile Conectians
OCounty Funding Superior Courts
-
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 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 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 3-2does 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, on the following page, provides a summary of major programs and services and their related annual costs per juvenile for fiscal year 1997 (as a revised 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
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
-
A
9
ona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Exhibit 3-4
Families ADES Community A E D AE DS AH DS
Family ; County Probation Department
:
County Attorney
:
Others
Family Juvenile Court
Family
: :
:
County Probation Department
:
;
Family AJ DC
a
1
'
Sectlon 3 Juvenile Justice Structure And Stakeholders
* A juvenile may be receiving overlapping services during the year, including a treatment component, which results in the total number of dispositions being greater than the original number of petitions. Page 3 - 5
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
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 the juveniles 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 the juvenile 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 juvenile justice 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 those juveniles 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.
AdmI~~istmtiw Ci M DSvisIean (;QOWSQ
af tha Cou& JuvenTIe Jui;.tlm Serwlciiw OPAOC'
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
.
Prevention, through the Juvenile Crime Reduction Fund, Intervention, which includes:
Diversion, Standard Probation, lntensive 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, AOCNJSD 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 3-5 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
-
WAOC Administrative Overhead
-
OAOC Direct SupporVWithheldAmounts
-
BAOC Family Counseling
-
BAOC lntensive Probation -Juvenile (intensive) WAOC Juvenile Probation State Aid (regular)
-
-
BAOC Juvenile Treatment Services (services)
-
The direct support category includes funds withheld by AOC for direct services and support to the counties. These funds include training, certification, vehicles, and JOLTS. The funds were used to provide services to approximately 50,210 children in the juvenile justice system for state appropriated dollars administered by AOCIJJSD and the 15
Section 3 Juvenile Justice Structure And Stakeholders
Page 3 7
-
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
counties. The average annual costs and comparative national averages for the major components of the AOCIJJSD structure are summarized below. Actual expenditures per juvenile vary by the length of supervision and treatment options used.
Arizona Averaqe
Standard Probation Intensive Probation Treatment
National Averaae
$1,247 $4,900 $ 453
$803 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 5 of this report. In addition, the results of our interviews, analysis conducted on and operations review of AOC is included in Appendix B of this report.
Arizona Department of Juvenile Cormctions (AWC)
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, Southwest Regional Juvenile Corrections Complex, 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
ABP-3.1
BEST PRACTICES Interagency Collaboration on Use of Treatment Provider Contracts It should be noted that ADJC and AOC have entered into an IntergovernmentalAgreement 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 Sectlons 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: W C Internal Financial Statements
a
-
50%
. .
ADJC Administration ADJC Education ADJC Community Care ADJC Boot Carrl, 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.
Section 3 Juvenile Justice Structure And Stakeholders
Page 3 9
-
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
This information compares to a national average of approximately 294 days per juvenile at an annual cost of $42,707. 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 D8partments (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
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.
Section 3 Juvenile Justice Structure And Stakeholders
Page 3 - 10
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
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 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 Court 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.
Section 3 Juvenile Justice Structure And Stakeholders
Page 3 11
-
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
Stakeholder Site V sts Ei
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 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 (DCOM) which is included for review in each entity's summary.
e
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 70f 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 R e ~ o r t
Deloitte Consulting
Juvenile Crime Pmventian
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 supervision. Children in low-income families are more likely than others to be home alone for three or more hours each day.2 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 or her 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; Truancy; Familial history of incarceration; and Unsafe and/or ineffective schools.
Section 4 Prevention
Page 4 1
-
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
The presence of one or more of these factors in a young person's life may lead him or her 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.
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 Ste3kehoIders in PmwntEon
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 preventing juvenile crime can be broken down into four basic groups that include families, schools, communities and juveniles themselves. Examples of influential participants include the following:
Parents Grandparents Aunts and Uncles Siblings Teachers Counselors Supervisors Coaches Students Law Enforcement Businesses and Employers Universities or Colleges Non-Profit Agencies Youth Organizations Neighborhoods Service Providers Faith-Based Organizations Gangs Peer Groups 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
Section 4 Prevention
Page 4 - 2
Arizona Juvenile Justice Evaluation Final Report
Deloitte Consulting
web of influence around at-risk youth.
@
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 dollar^.^ In contrast, Prevention programs 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 $1.00 spent in law enforcement and juvenile justice resource^.^ Other similar examples of the costeffectiveness of investment in Prevention from across the nation are highlighted below.3
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 PreventioMntervention 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
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 1,500 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. Exhibit 4-1 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
HghlScope Perry Preschool Study: Major Rndings at Age 27 Project Head Start
90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
Deloitte Consulting
Rogram No Rogram
8
$
Q
5 or k r e Arrests
$20001Earningshlo.
Homeowner
Exhibit 4- 1
Fkceive Social Services
Hgh School 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; 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
@
This report does not attempt to quantify the total dollars spent on these services for children and their families. However, Exhibit 4-2 below provides examples of approximate spending or funding levels provided for in Arizona for certain publicly funded Prevention efforts4.
Exhibit 4-2
In summary, for those programs where information was available, the total public financing expended on Prevention in Arizona in fiscal year 1997 was approximately $20.4 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
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 4. I .
-
BEST PRACTICES 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.) 541-2401(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. 512-116.01. 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 from the previous year. A team of JCRF Specialists rev
Arizona State Agency Publications
