RESEARCH REPORT Bridging Research And Practice In Juvenile .

2y ago
22 Views
2 Downloads
1.27 MB
86 Pages
Last View : 1m ago
Last Download : 2m ago
Upload by : Allyson Cromer
Transcription

JUSTICE POLICY CENTERRE S E AR C H RE P O R TBridging Research and Practice inJuvenile ProbationRethinking Strategies to Promote Long-Term ChangeSamantha HarvellHanna LoveElizabeth PelletierChloe Warnbergwith Teresa Derrick-Mills, Marcus Gaddy, Constance Hull, Akiva Liberman, Megan Russo,Janeen Buck Willison, and Mary K. WinklerOctober 2018

AB O U T T HE U R BA N I NS T I T U TEThe nonprofit Urban Institute is a leading research organization dedicated to developing evidence-based insightsthat improve people’s lives and strengthen communities. For 50 years, Urban has been the trusted source forrigorous analysis of complex social and economic issues; strategic advice to policymakers, philanthropists, andpractitioners; and new, promising ideas that expand opportunities for all. Our work inspires effective decisions thatadvance fairness and enhance the well-being of people and places.Copyright October 2018. Urban Institute. Permission is granted for reproduction of this file, with attribution to theUrban Institute. Cover image by Tim Meko.

ContentsAcknowledgmentsvChapter 1. Bridging Research and Practice in Juvenile Justice1The Case for Bridging Research and Practice1The Need to Focus on Juvenile Probation2The Development of the Bridge Project5A Framework for Research-Informed Juvenile Probation6Chapter 2. Screening, Assessment, and Structured DecisionmakingBridging Research and Practice in Assessment and Case Processing Decisions1010Screen Each Youth at Intake, and Divert Youth from Formal System Involvement WhereAppropriate13Use Validated Assessment Tools to Comprehensively Assess Risk, Needs, and Strengths16Use Risk Information to Inform Recommendations and Decisions at Key Points18Use Information on Needs and Strengths to Inform Case Planning20Chapter 3. Case Planning23Bridging Research and Practice through Case Planning23Engage Youth and Caregivers or Supportive Adults in the Development of Case Plans24Set Targeted and Incremental Expectations for Youth27Ensure Youth and Caregivers Understand What Is Expected of Them, the Consequences ofNoncompliance, and Incentives for Meeting ExpectationsChapter 4. Matching Services and Promoting Positive Youth Development2830Bridging Research and Practice to Match Youth to Services and Promote Positive Development30Connect Youth to Individualized Culturally Responsive and Gender-Responsive Programming31Connect Youth with Evidence-Based Programs and Practices, if Available, That Target IdentifiedCriminogenic NeedsConnect Youth with Supportive Adults and Mentors in Their Community3536Promote Skill Building and Provide Opportunities for Youth to Apply These Skills in TheirCommunityChapter 5. Structuring Supervision to Promote Long-Term Behavior Change3841Bridging Research and Practice to Promote Long-Term Behavior Change41Use Structured Meetings with Youth to Support Long-Term Behavior Change42Treat Youth Fairly and Consistently, While Responding to Their Unique Needs45Foster a Genuine, Supportive, Prosocial Relationship with Youth49

Chapter 6. Incentivizing Success and Implementing Graduated Responses51Bridging Research and Practice through Incentives and Sanctions51Incentivize Success through Positive Reinforcement52Encourage Accountability through Graduated Responses54Ensure Procedural Fairness57Chapter 7. Conclusion59Appendix A. Glossary60Notes63References65About the Authors77Statement of Independence79Case Studies and Local Examples1. Screening and Assessment in Florida152. The Adolescent Diversion Program at Michigan State University163. DYRS Youth Family Team Meetings264. Multnomah County Communities of Color Initiative345. Girls Circle356. Credible Messenger Mentoring387. Youth Advocate Programs408. Rethinking Probation Using the Effective Practices in Community Supervision (EPICS) Model509. Opportunity-Based Probation in Pierce County, WA54IVCONTENTS

AcknowledgmentsThis project was supported by grant number 2015-MU-MU-K002 awarded by the Office of JuvenileJustice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs. We are grateful to them and to all ourfunders, who make it possible for Urban to advance its mission.The opinions, findings, conclusions, and recommendations expressed in this publication are those ofthe authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Justice nor should they beattributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. Funders do not determine research findingsor the insights and recommendations of Urban experts. Further information on the Urban Institute’sfunding principles is available at urban.org/funding-principles.The authors would like to thank Jennifer Tyson at the Office of Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention and members of the informal work group who reviewed and commented on drafts of thereport including Nancy Arrigona, Grace Bauer, Steve Bishop, Jeanne Brandner, Jaclyn Cirrina, VeronicaDelgado-Savage, Layla Fry, Kim Godfrey, Naomi Goldstein, Kari Harp, Nathan Lowe, Mark Mertens,Edward Mulvey, Gail Norman, Ron Quiros, John Ryals, Bob Schwartz, Tessa Upin, Gina Vincent, andJosh Weber.ACKNOWLEDGMENTSV

Chapter 1. Bridging Research andPractice in Juvenile JusticeOver the past several decades, we have learned a great deal about what works to improve public safetyand outcomes for youth 1 who come into contact with the juvenile justice system. States and localitiesacross the United States have increasingly embraced this knowledge and implemented several changesto the way they respond to and manage system-involved youth. For example, research has shown thatremoving kids from their homes disconnects them from critical family and social supports, interfereswith prosocial development, and generally does a poor job of preventing reoffending, particularly forthose at low risk of future delinquency (Fabelo et al. 2015; NRC 2013; Ryon et al. 2013). Between 1999and 2015, the number of youth detained or placed out of home was cut in half. 2 Practitioners point tothis shift as one of the most effective applications of research in practice, but a number of other gapsremain (Love et al. 2016). This report aims to fill one of those gaps, synthesizing the best researchavailable into concrete recommendations for juvenile probation officers who interact with hundreds ofthousands of youth every year.The Case for Bridging Research and PracticeResearch over the past several decades has significantly improved our understanding of what works toimprove outcomes for youth who come into contact with the juvenile justice system. It also has revealeddistinct differences between youth and adults—differences that have important implications forunderstanding how and why youth engage in delinquent behavior (NRC 2013). These differences alsoinform effective strategies for holding youth accountable, promoting skill development, strengtheningfamily connections, improving perceptions of the legitimacy of the law and legal actors, and reducingrecidivism.Though practitioners are increasingly aware of the importance of understanding and responding tothe unique needs and strengths of youth, they have expressed a need for more concrete guidance onincorporating developmentally appropriate practices in their day-to-day work (Love et al. 2016). Byleveraging what we know about both how youth differ from adults and what works to improveoutcomes, we can develop new, more effective strategies to meet the three primary goals of juvenilejustice: enhancing public safety by holding youth accountable, preventing future delinquency, andpromoting healthy development (NRC 2013).

BOX 1Why Successful Strategies Should Consider the Unique Context of AdolescenceYouth differ from adults in many ways that are relevant for juvenile justice interventions. Youthtypically have less capacity for self-regulation than adults and can have a hard time managing theiremotions and behavior, especially when they are nervous, excited, or stressed (Somerville, Fani, andMcClure-Tone 2011; and Tottenham, Hare, and Casey 2011; as cited in NRC 2013). Youth are typicallymore likely to take risks that will result in an immediate reward, are more susceptible to peer pressure,and have a harder time considering the long-term consequences of their actions (Figner et al. 2009;Gardner and Steinberg 2005; Steinberg 2009a). In short, youth are primed to experiment with riskybehavior and lack mature capacities for self-regulation and judgment.Research shows that the majority of youth age out of this experimentation phase, and most youthwho become involved in the juvenile justice system do not continue offending into adulthood (seeFarrington 1989; and Moffitt 1993; as cited in NRC 2013; along with Steinberg, Cauffman, andMonahan 2015). Social contexts, including families, school and work opportunities, and prosocial peergroups, provide critical supports to promote healthy development (Steinberg, Chung, and Little 2004; ascited in NRC 2013). Fair and just treatment—and the perception of fair and just treatment—are alsocritical to youth’s moral development and legal socialization—that is, the processes through whichyouth develop a sense of self, gain an understanding of their place in the community, and adopt societalnorms about prosocial behavior (see Fagan and Piquero 2007; Fagan and Tyler 2005; Tyler and Huo2002; and Woolard, Harvell, and Graham 2008; as cited in NRC 2013). Justice system responses thatacknowledge these differences, respect the critical importance of social contexts in youth’s lives, andpromote positive youth development are often better able to get youth on track to successful adulthoodthan more traditional, punitive approaches (NRC 2013).The Need to Focus on Juvenile ProbationThe latest national data suggest that nearly 300,000 cases processed through juvenile courts across theUnited States resulted in formal or informal probation (Hockenberry and Puzzanchera 2018). In fact,nearly every youth who comes into contact with the juvenile justice system interacts with one or moreprobation practitioners (Development Services Group 2017c; Steiner, Roberts, and Hemmens 2003;Torbet 1996). Though specific responsibilities vary by jurisdiction, juvenile probation officers perform awide range of tasks, including conducting intake interviews and investigations; making decisions orrecommendations to the court about diversion, case processing, and placement; and supervising youthplaced on probation or returning to the community from confinement (Torbet 1996). 3 They play acritical role in the justice process and have a unique opportunity to intervene in a youth’s life and helpget him or her back on track to successful adulthood.2BRIDGING RESEARCH AND PRACTICE IN JUVENILE PROBATION: RETHINKING STRATEGIES

Despite the significant role that probation officers play in the lives of system-involved youth, theymay not always be well informed about important differences between youth and adults or equipped toleverage what we know about adolescence to effectively hold youth accountable and promote longterm changes. A recent study found that only one in three probation officers received any training onadolescent development (Annie E. Casey Foundation 2017a), and a review of state codes in all 50 statesfound no appreciable differences between juvenile and adult probation officers’ responsibilities or tasks(Steiner et al. 2004). Further, the limited research that exists suggests that traditional probation modelsthat employ intensive surveillance do not reduce recidivism (WSIPP and University of WashingtonEvidence-Based Practice Institute 2017). Increasing the use of developmentally appropriate practices inyouth probation holds significant potential to improve efficient use of resources as well as promoteyouths’ individual skill development, improve family functioning, and reduce recidivism—all of whichbuild stronger families and safer communities (NRC 2013).A range of national juvenile justice leaders have recognized the need for improved practices injuvenile probation, and many are working to reform practices in specific jurisdictions to align with thelatest research on adolescent development and effective practice. Some recent examples are listed below: In 2018, the Council of State Governments Justice Center and the Center for Juvenile JusticeReform a t Georgetown University released Transforming Juvenile Justice Systems to ImprovePublic Safety and Youth Outcomes, which synthesizes findings from interviews with key juvenilejustice experts and practitioners to provide research-based guidance on transforming juvenilejustice system practices. Stoneleigh Foundation Visiting Fellow Robert Schwartz made the case for a developmentalframework to youth probation in a monograph released in October 2017 (Schwartz 2017). The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) passed a resolution in2017 on the importance of integrating developmental science in youth probation (NCJFCJ2017). The council also released a bench card, “Applying Principles of Adolescent Developmentin Delinquency Proceedings“ (NCJFCJ, n.d.) to provide guidance for judges on recognizing thedevelopmental differences between youth and adults. With funding from OJJDP, the American Probation and Parole Association, The Council ofState Governments Justice Center, and the Robert F. Kennedy National Resource Center forJuvenile Justice launched a Juvenile Probation Reform Academy in 2015, offering aprofessional development opportunity for youth probation administrators to learn about whatworks to improve youth outcomes, including the critical importance of developmentallyBRIDGING RESEARCH AND PRACTICE IN JUVENILE PROBATION: RETHINKING STRATEGIES3

appropriate practice. In 2018, this collaborative hosted a symposium on the “Future of JuvenileProbation” at the annual American Probation and Parole Association training institute thatsynthesized lessons on effective practice and key considerations for effective implementation. In 2014, the Annie E. Casey Foundation launched its Probation Transformation Initiative, 4which promotes probation reform grounded in principles of adolescent development. In May2018, the foundation released “Transforming Juvenile Probation: A Vision for Getting it Right,”which synthesizes the evidence and rationale for reducing the number of youth on probationand transforming the interventions for youth who remain on probation officers’ caseloads. Since 2005, the Robert F. Kennedy National Resource Center for Juvenile Justice has partneredwith individual youth probation departments in an intensive technical assistance effort—theProbation System Review 5—to analyze and align their systems with best practices.BOX 2Understanding Probation in the Broader Juvenile Justice ContextThough this report focuses on how probation officers can align their practices with a research-informedapproach, probation officers may be limited in their ability to shift practice. In some jurisdictions, probation officers have significant discretion to make decisions about diversion, develop and adjust caseplans, respond to youth behavior with incentive and sanction options, and limit the circumstances inwhich cases must be sent back to court for review or revoked. In other jurisdictions, probation officersmay have no involvement in pre-court diversion decisions, be forced to use a laundry list of standardsupervision conditions, have limited options to incentivize youth or reward progress, and have strictorders from the court to revoke youth even for minor infractions. In every jurisdiction, other systemactors—particularly judges and prosecutors—hold significant control over case processing decisions.Furthermore, probation officers may have limited opportunities to coordinate with other systems,such as the child welfare system, to improve outcomes for youth on their caseloads. Some places havefew formal mechanisms for communication and information-sharing between staff for child welfare andjuvenile justice systems, leading to structural challenges serving youth enrolled in both systems (Herz etal. 2012). This can cause significant barriers for probation officers; according to rough estimates, asmany as half the youth referred to the juvenile justice system are also enrolled in the child welfaresystem (NJJN 2016). Ensuring that all stakeholders are united in applying a research-informedapproach to youth supervision is critical to success. This topic will be covered in some depth in thecompanion Bridge Project materials on implementation. Ultimately, though some recommendations inthis report may not be feasible in every jurisdiction, most, if not all, practitioners should be able toidentify promising opportunities for leveraging the opportunities that they do have and adopting moredevelopmentally appropriate practices in their day-to-day work.4BRIDGING RESEARCH AND PRACTICE IN JUVENILE PROBATION: RETHINKING STRATEGIES

The Development of the Bridge ProjectDespite the targeted efforts outlined above, few resources exist that provide concrete guidance on howjuvenile probation officers, specifically, can integrate lessons from research on adolescent developmentand effective interventions in their daily practices. To fill this gap, the Urban Institute (Urban) is workingto translate this information into actionable policy and practice recommendations through the BridgingResearch and Practice to Advance Juvenile Justice and Safety project (Bridge Project), a cooperativeagreement with the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention that launched in 2015. In the first phase of the project, Urban’s multidisciplinary researchers focused on identifyingareas where research is not fully informing policy and practice. Using a systematic approach,the Urban team identified a need for practical guidance on how juvenile justice practitionerscan change daily practices to respond to the unique needs and strengths of adolescents (Love etal. 2016). Practitioners, stakeholders, researchers, and national experts agreed that fewpractical tools for translation exist in this area. This foundational research also identified threekey target populations for translation tools: probation officers, judges, and policymakers. Building on this work, the second phase of the project focuses on bridging research and practicein youth probation and aims to develop tools to help probation officers and agencies align theirpractices with research on adolescent development and what works to reduce recidivism andimprove youth, agency, and community outcomes. This report provides concrete guidance forfrontline probation staff to align their work with our best knowledge of the unique needs andstrengths of youth and successful strategies to promote positive youth development, maximizethe efficient use of limited supervision resources, reduce recidivism, and ultimately improvepublic safety. It is the first of several Bridge Project probation products, all of which focus ontranslating research on adolescent development and what works to reduce recidivism andimprove positive youth development outcomes for youth in the probation context. Future Bridge Project products are planned in two tracks: practitioner-oriented, hands-onmaterials (e.g., fact sheets, wallet cards, videos, and/or worksheets) that summarize key lessonsfrom the report in more accessible formats; and implementation products that address keyconsiderations for probation administrators and supervisors establishing a research-informedapproach at the agency level. Implementation products summarize how probation agencyroutines and expectations may need to change to support developmentally appropriatepractice, including staff skills and training needs, agency culture and dynamics, policies andBRIDGING RESEARCH AND PRACTICE IN JUVENILE PROBATION: RETHINKING STRATEGIES5

procedures, data systems and quality assurance protocols, stakeholder relationships, andleadership engagement.BOX

Contents Acknowledgments v Chapter 1. Bridging Research and Practice in Juvenile Justice 1 The Case for Bridging Research and Practice 1 The Need to Focus on Juvenile Probation 2 The Development of the Bridge Project 5 A Framework for Research-Informed Juvenile Probation 6 Chapter 2.

Related Documents:

Each level of Girl Scouting has its own unique bridging award patch. Bridging Ceremonies Bridging ceremonies often utilize a bridge as girls take literal steps toward the future. For Girl Scouts, the act of crossing the bridge is both a physical and symbolic step. Bridging ceremonies can: Include troops, groups, or individuals

(bridging atoms) The orientation can be random, leading to an amorphous structure. Some oxygen atoms will be bonded to only one silicon atom (non-bridging atoms). The relative amounts of bridging to non- bridging determines the "quality" of the oxide. If all oxygen atoms are bridging, then a regular crystal structure results - quartz. SiO

Network Bridging Setup Guide www.cetoncorp.com Network Bridging Setup Guide 2013 Network Bridging (a.k.a. Network Tuners) is compatible with PCs running Windows 7 with Media . Selecting the "configure manually" option will allow you to choose any available wired or wireless NIC. www.cetoncorp.com Network Bridging Setup Guide 2013 4 .

between plies of dissimilar orientation, so fiber-bridging does not occur. Therefore, in order to be useful in structural modeling, expressions relating the delamination growth rate and strain energy release rate must account for the effect of fiber-bridging. Fiber-bridging under quasi-static loading can be quantified as a delamination .

Bridging the Gap Across the Sister Islands FEATURES OF THIS EDITION H O U S E O F A S E M B L Y V I R G IN S L A N D S 1st Quarter 2022 BRIDGING THE GAP Message: Bridging the Gap Across the Sister Islands (Hon. Shereen Flax-Charles) Special Feature: BVI NPO Collaboration Service Day on ANEGADA Sister Islander of the Quarter: Guess Who?

the ethical, social, and legal issues facing genomic research, bridging the gap between indigenous peo-ple and genomic scientists offers lessons and models for conducting genomic research for the world com-munity as a whole, particularly for vulnerable and high risk populations. Bridging the Divide

2 I Mental Disorders and Genetics: Bridging the Gap Between Research and Society Understanding the Roie of Genetic Factors in Mental Illness: Bridging the Gap Between Research and Society AGENDA Thursday after eon. January n r 21, 1993 1:00-1:30 Opening Remarks Herbert Paroles, M. D., W

E. Kreyszig, “Advanced Engineering Mathematics”, 8th edition, John Wiley and Sons (1999). 3. M. R. Spiegel, “Advanced Mathematics for Engineers and Scientists”, Schaum Outline Series, McGraw Hill, (1971). 4. Chandrika Prasad, Reena Garg, "Advanced Engineering Mathematics", Khanna Publishing house. RCH-054: Statistical Design of Experiments (3:1:0) UNIT 1 Introduction: Strategy of .