A Utah Juvenile Court Case Study

7/27/2019 A Utah Juvenile Court Case Study

1/18

I n t er med iat e S anct ionsf o r J uvenil e O f f end er s:

A Utah Juvenile Court Case Study

P r es en t e d t o t h e

Co nf er ence o f Western A t t or neys Gener a l / A u gu st 2 00 5

Mic hael R Phill ips, MPA 1; Marie A Cecchin i, MS2; John H. Wolfe, MS2; Robert Graves, MS2

1 Utah Juvenile Court Administration (Retired), 635 South Mountain Road, Fruit Heights, UT 840372 Foundation for Advancements in Science and Education, 4801 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 215, Los Angeles, CA 90010


2/18

E X E C U T IV E S U M M A R Y

BackgroundIn an effort to reduce juvenile recidivism the return to criminal behavior after leaving the juvenile court au thor it ies in Utah im plem en ted a new st atew id e in term ed ia te sanctio n sys tem in whic h each dis tri c tcould choose a treatment component. Noting the high rate of substance abuse among juvenile offenders,the Fourth District Juvenile Court chose to implement the Narconon program through a Utah l icensed not-for-profi t c alled NewLife, integrating it within court-directed probation services.

The Narconon outpatient substance abuse treatment program, based on secular materials developed byL. Ron H ubbard, con sists of a series of m odules that address physical aspects of substan ce abuse as wellas und erlying soc ial and l ife skil ls that m ay be defi cient in these youth s. Participants c om plete a precisedetoxifi cation program designed to eliminate dru g cravings by imp roving n utritional status and uti l izing lowheat saun a to reduc e body stores of drug r esidues. The detoxifi cation phase is follow ed by a series of socialeducation m odules designed to im prove individual abil i ties in com m unic ation, study skil ls, cognitive functionand ethic al decisions. Participants also study a n on-religious m oral code.

This program was im plemented in partnership with court offi cials and probation offi cers in the Utah FourthDistrict Juvenile Court, in the context of implementing new juvenile sentencing guidelines under the 1997State Supervision M andate. Juvenile court probation offi cers also played a t reatment provider role by m oni-toring case progress through intensive ongoing contac t with each ju venile, increasing fam ily participation intreatment services, creating written correction plans, and applying ju stice actions to any anti-social behaviorthat occ urred durin g the cou rse of program d elivery. The court h oped to reduce the rate at whic h th ese youthpenetrated deeper into the justic e system, and t o achieve a reduction in placem ent costs.

Study Population:In the Utah Fourth District , all youth sentenc ed into the new state supervision program w ere enrolled in theNarconon program as the single rehabil i tation option for that district. There were no exclusionary criteria th e fi rst 100 you th sen tenced ac cor din g to the st ate su per vis ion pro gra m were en ro ll ed in the Nar con on

program and autom atically assigned to this study. It should be noted that m ore than half of these youth w erecandidates for confi nem ent (jail) or com m unity placem ent (rem oval from their hom es) rather than state su-pervision, which is a sanction on ly slightly stiffer than probation.

An h istorical com parison group was selected from 517 youths of record from the 4th District Juvenile Courtbetween January 1, 1995 and Decem ber 31, 1996. The U tah Juvenile Court Ad m inistration applied their 1997sentencing guidelines paradigm to identify youths w ith sentencin g profi les, sentencing g uidelines, age atsentencing an d age at fi rst offense that were similar to th ose in the study group.

Utah Fourth District Juvenile Court: New Intermediate Sanctions ModelIm pact of th e Narcon on NewLife Program on H igh-Rate Juvenile Offenders


3/18


4/18

B A C K G R O U N D

High risk and ch ronically offending juveniles are a unique problem in crim inal justice. Identifi cation of thechron ic offender is generally ascribed to th e research w ork of Wolfgang, et al in th eir 1972 study, Delinquencyin a B irth Cohort. Chronic recid ivists constitu te only 6-8 percent of youth in a given age group, yet account forapproximately 50 percent of the crim e of that group. Arrests and court app earances do l ittle to deter chronicoffenders. Punishm ent does not deter the ch ronic offender. The m ore severe the sanction the m ore l ikely thechron ic offender wil l recidivate.

Substance abuse is a com m on thread in juvenile crim e and has been shown to amplify the extent of crim inalactivity. States are incorporating a variety of treatm ent in terventions to address dru g-related c rim e and relievethe fi nancial bu rden of substance abuse on the crim inal justice system .

Treatm ent result s for juveniles, however, have been disapp oint ing . The fi rst nat ional stu dy of substan ce abusetreatment outcom es (1,799 persons from 99 drug treatment facil i ties) reports a 13 percent inc rease in ado-lescent alcohol abuse and a 202 percent in crease in adolescent crack u se following treatm ent. The rate ofadolescent driving und er the infl uence (DUI), driving w hile intoxicated (DWI) and sell ing of dru gs inc reasedafter treatment as w ell.

Wh ile the study did not explore the causes of poor outcom es, it is evident th at new approach es are needed forthis population. Lipsey found t hat useful treatm ents not only address substance abuse (found in the m ajor-ity), but also m ust h andle antisocial behavior.

The Situation in UtahIn 2001, Colum bia University conduc ted a national sur vey, known as th e Shoveling U p stu dy, for the NationalCenter on Addict ion and Substan ce Abuse. It brought d isturbin g news for Utah , fi ndin g that 11.7 percent ofUtah s total 1998 state budget was spent on shoveling up after the impac t of addiction and sub stance abuse.

Of these expenditures m ore than $500,000,000 very l i ttle went to prevention or treatm ent. As th e authorsof the Shoveling Up report noted, the situation in Utah m irrored a national problem :

This report is the fi rst com prehensive analysis of how m uch substanc e abuse and addiction c ost each statebudget. This unprecedented analysis shows that states spent a stunning $81.3 bil l ion in 1998 to deal with

this issue 13.1 percent of th eir budgets. Even m ore striking is th at of every dollar states spent on su bstanceabuse, 96 cents went to sh ovel up th e wreckage in state programs and only four cents went to prevent andtreat the problem.

In 1994, Phil l ips, the deputy court adm inistrator of the Ut ah Juvenile Court, condu cted a stud y that lookedinto criminal recidivism of 187 juvenile chronic offenders sentenced to Utahs Juvenile Secure Facil i ties.These youths h ad failed all previous probation, com m unity placem ent and treatm ent interventions and beensentenced to secure facil i ties (Utahs h ighest juvenile sanction).

Alm ost all these youths h ad received drug t reatment interventions. Each youth was tracked for 3 years intothe adu lt cr im inal justic e system and the fi nding s analyzed. Fifty-seven percent were found serving a sen-tence in U tah prison; another 10 percent had a felony conviction with probation or jail, and another 11 percenthad a m isdemeanor con viction. An additional 9 percent were arrested in Utah an d 3 percent had out -of-state

arrests. Eleven percent could not be located. Nin ety percent h ad involvement in th e system as adults w ithalmost 67 percent having at least one felony conviction.

Costs of attempted rehabil i tation of these young offenders (within the juvenile system) had amountedto almost $20 million or roughly $107,000 per individual. This investment was viewed as a dismal failure bypolicy leaders.


5/18

Early Intervention Mandate

The key, unanswered question is whether prompt and more effective early intervention would stop highrate delinquent s from becom ing high rate crimin als at a tim e when their offenses were not yet too serious.Perhaps early and swift t hough not necessarily severe sanction s could deter som e budding hoodlum s, butwe have no evidenc e of that as yet.

James Q. Wilson, CriminologistThe Utah legislature took action. In 1997 they created new juvenile sentencing g uidelines coupled w ith a n ew

probation sanction entitled, State Supervision An Early Intervention Mandate: The Juvenile SentencingGuidelines and Interm ediate Sanction in Ut ah. The new gu idelines called for earl ier sentencin g to probationand created state supervision as an intermediate sanction, in th e form of in tensive supervision and enhanc e-ment of services between probation and removal from the home to a community placement. They also re-quested that each district im plement treatm ent interventions and provided funding for them to do so.

Figure 1 Pre-Mandate Sanctions Figure 2 Post-Mandate Sanctions

It was envisioned that th is sanction w ould con sist of locally created intensive service programs that w ouldlargely be in-home efforts, with short-term c om m unity placem ents provided as needed. Juvenile Court w ouldhave primar y responsibil i ty as the c ase man ager and p rovider of services. Specifi cally, the cou rt w ould c on-tact offen ders at least fi ve tim es weekly, increase outside-of-offi ce con tact s, provide progr am m ing du ring af-ter school hours, increase substance abuse testing and treatm ent, develop alternative school program m ing,expand com m unity service work crews, increase fam ily participation in su pervision and c ounseling, expandelectronic m onitoring statewide and construc t a written correction plan outl ining specifi c m easurable goalsfor each offen der.

EvaluationsTwo statew ide evaluati ons of the Utah Early Inter vention M andat e have been init iated. One of these has beencom pleted. In September 2001 the Final Report of Im pact of An Early Intervention M andate: The JuvenileSentencing Guidelines and Interm ediate Sanctions in U tah was issued.

Objectives of th is evaluation in cluded: a) assessing the effectiveness of th e earlier int ervention program inreducing c rim inal activity and rates of comm itm ent to Youth Corrections, and b) identifying prom ising localapproaches to the new program .

The evaluation m easured two-year post-sentencing recidivism of fi rst-tim e probationers, com paring thosesenten ced du ring the fi rst 6 m onth s of 1996 versus 1999. Statewide (8 juvenile distric ts) 871 youths w ereselected in 1996 and 1095 youths in 1999. Offenses were obtained from court records. Comm itm ents to YouthCorrections facil i ties (comm unity placem ent and secure care facil i ty) were exam ined for1996 versus 1999.

S E C U R EFACILITY

J A I LLaw

Enforcement

mmm

mmm

Sentenced

Sentenced

S E C U R EFACILITY

J A I LLaw

Enforcement

mmm

mmm

Sentenced

Sentenced

PROBATIONCOMMUNITY

PLACEMENTPROBATION

COMMUNITY

PLACEMENT

STATE

SUPERVISION

SentencedSentenced

Sentenced

Probation

YouthCorrections

Probation

YouthCorrections

U TA H Ju ven il e Pr e-M a nd at e Gr ad uat ed San c ti on s U TA H Ju ven ile Cou rt s Gr ad uat ed San c ti on s


6/18

The researchers concluded: 1) effects of the new program on re-offense were modest, and reductions ap-peared to be related to sentenc ing less-frequent offenders to p robation; 2) no statistical difference w as notedpre- versus post- on com m itm ents to Youth Corrections, and 3) differences between local inter vention ap-proaches in th e districts were slight. Nu m erous factors were discussed as possible infl uences on t he fi nd-ings in cludin g it m ay sti l l be too early for a clear decrease to be evident.

The second statewide evaluation is being con duct ed by the Social Research Institute un der a grant from the

Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice. This study seeks to answer three questions: 1) Does statesupervision m ake a difference in recidivism rates?; 2) Which specifi c c ontractu al program s work w ell? and3) What are the cost benefi ts to state supervision? The study is designed to evaluate different programs invarious districts. Thirty youths from each district who h ave been on or are current ly on state supervision wil lbe studied from each area. The evaluation h as not been released as of th is writing .

This paper presents a th ird evaluation of the im pact of the Early Intervention M andate. It differs from pr eviousevaluations in that it addresses the impact of a specifi c program implemented by the 4th District JuvenileCourt, a program that c ontinu ed for nearly two years after the period exam ined in th e Septem ber 2001 reporton th e Early Intervention M andate.

Und er the 1997 m andate, the Fourth District Juvenile Court was directed to c reate a local approach for pro-gram m ing u nder state supervision. Previous experience had show n th at the additional services they offered

should focu s on drug u se and educational defi ciencies.

The districts ju dges and adm inistrative personnel, through a com petitive bid process, selected th e Narconondrug rehabil i tation m ethodology provided b y a local not-for-profi t g roup called N ewLife. The Fourth D istrictCourt initiated their state supervision program in conju nction w ith NewLife in March 1998.

M E T H O D O L O G Y A N D D E S I G N

Treatment Setting

The N ewLife program w as based on m aterials developed by Narconon International, an organization uti l izinga m anualized treatm ent paradigm . Regardless of treatment setting , or intensity, treatment is delivered in asequence outl ined in 8 m anual-based modu les that constitut e a comp rehensive therapy. This program does

not include pharm acologic treatment.

The fi rst treatm ent ph ase is designed to h andle the p hysical aspects of addict ion. It uti l izes a precise de-toxifi cation regim en incorporating exercise, low heat sauna, vitam in and m ineral supplementation and otherelements to reduce the body burden of drugs and drug metabolites associated with protracted substanceabuse,. Reduction of dru g cravings and restoration of ph ysical health is also accom plished by addressing th enutrit ional imbalanc es frequently noted in drug abusers.

The detoxifi cation p hase is followed by a series of social education m odules designed to im prove individualabil i ties in communication, study skil ls, cognitive function and ethical decisions. Participants also study anon-religious m oral code. These modu les are delivered in a c lassroom setting, with each youth progressingat his or her own rate based on successful com pletion of each program elem ent.

Und er the 1997 State Supervision M andate, study group juveniles were enrolled in t he NewLife outpatienttreatment center. This facil i ty was l icensed by Narc onon Int ernational and c ontracted to deliver services bythe 4th D istric t Juvenile Court in Provo/Orem , Utah. The progr am ran six to seven days per week for fi ve hou rsafter school. The duration of the program was approximately 6 months, depending on each individual andany intervening ju stice actions.

The Early Intervention M andate provides for a uniqu e court-directed program in whic h th e youth c aseload ism anaged directly by the juvenile court probation offi cers. In addition to the delivery of the program m odules


7/18

by Narconon staff, juvenile court probation offi cers played a treatm ent provider role by m onitoring case prog-ress through int ensive ongoing contac t with each ju venile, increasing fam ily participation in treatm ent ser-vices, creating writt en correction plans, and applying justic e actions to any anti-social behavior that m ay oc-cur d uring t he course of program delivery. In this district, youth l ived at hom e, went to school, were broughtto the facil i ty by probation offi cers and pic ked up by parents or a responsible adult.

Study PopulationThe fi rst 100 youths sentenced acc ording t o the n ew state supervision gu idelines were enrolled int o the

Narcon on program and were autom atically assigned to this study. In the Utah Fourth District, the Narcononprogram was selected as the single rehabil i tation option; as there were no other program options, the studycould not use a random assignment scheme. There were also no exclusionary criteria in the 4th DistrictJuvenile Courtall youth sentenced into the new state supervision program were enrolled in the Narcon onprogram. The decision to sentence into state supervision was made by 4th District Juvenile Court judgeswhen the crim inality of youth had not been reversed by prior probationary actions.

An h istorical com parison group was selected from 517 youths of record from the 4th District Juvenile Courtbetween January 1 1995 and Decem ber 31 1996. The Ut ah Juvenile Court Adm inistration applied th eir 1997sentencing guidelines paradigm to this comparison group for the purposes of selecting youths with similarsentencing p rofi les. Inclusion in the historical com parison group w as based on similarities with respect tosentencing guidelines, age at sentencing an d age at fi rst offense.

Data SourcesData collection for this stu dy was authorized by the 4th Distric t Juvenile Court. Data available for this stu dycame from three sources: 1) the juvenile justice systems computerized database, made available by theUtah Juvenile Court Administration; 2) Utah states computerized adult criminal records database; and 3)Narcon on program case folders. Court data was p rovided electronically in a single fi le from each databaseand inc luded all data on record as of N ovem ber 2003. The Narcon on program case folder data was importedinto the m erged court records, including intervention start and end dates and whether or not the full programwas com pleted.

Data Analysis

All study youths were assigned a unique study number for the purposes of l inking records from differentsources wh ile protecting c onfi dentiality. Youths enrolled on the Narc onon prog ram were separated into tw o

groups one group that completed the full program and a second group that completed only a portion ofthe program . (Am ong those wh o did not com plete, duration of treatm ent ranged from a week or less to sev-eral months.)

All crim inal activities were analyzed by category: Total crim e, an analysis that also includ es status offenses(acts i l legal for youth only, e.g., curfew violations and truanc y), probation violations and oth er infractions;m isdemeanors; felonies; and drug charges, a category that inclu des any offenses such as possession, DWI,etc. that are directly drug-related.

Data w as analyzed in tw o m ain ways. The fi rst involved a quasi-experim ental in terrup ted tim e series designwhere criminal activity was summed by quarter for two years prior to enrollment in the Narconon programand two years following completion of the program (or for time the youth remained in the juvenile systembefore turning eighteen). This analysis tabulated the n um ber of juvenile offenses com m itted at 91-day quar-

terly intervals for two years before and two years following sentencin g. Adult records were not in cluded inthis analysis.

A second analysis was u ndertaken to evaluate the potential loss of d ata when a youth reaches 18 years of ageand/or is m oved into an adult ju stice system, as well as the possibil ity that any reduc tion in crim e rate is con-founded by placem ent in a secu re setting. This analysis calculated total crim e two years before and four yearsafter intervention as a rate per year, with days spent in jail or locked up rem oved from the tim e calculation.In this analysis, the nu m erator included all felonies and m isdemeanors recorded in both the juvenile systemand th e adult database. Infractions w ere ignored. An add itional analysis of total crim e used a l inear scale toweight t he severity of crime by m isdemeanor c lass and felony degree.


8/18

A N A LY S E S & FI N D I N G S

Study Group CharacteristicsOf the 100 youth enrolled in the N arconon N ewLife program , 74 com pleted the full program ; 26 did not. Thosewho did n ot com plete were removed from the program by the court prior to completion. While im possible toremove all confoun ding factors that m ight explain why the court found it n ecessary to remove a youth fromthe program, the high completion rate suggests that analysis by treatment exposure (indicated by comple-tion status) is possible. Therefore the experim ental group is fu rther separated into those wh o com pleted the

Narconon program and those who remained incomplete.

The demographic data for all groups in this study was generally similar and is described in Table 1. Theyouth were predominantly Caucasian males, with about 15 percent female and approximately 7 percentnon-Caucasian.

Table 1 Demographics Summary

Complete(total number)

Incomplete( total num ber)

Comparison( total num ber)

Count 74 26 200

Ethnicity

Caucasian 70 23 165

H ispanic 4 2 13

B lack 0 0 1

Other 0 1 10

No Response 0 0 11

Gender

M ale 62 22 172

Fem ale 12 4 28

Wh ile com parable overall, there were some d ifferences b etween groups. A s described in Table 2 juveniles

who d id not c om plete the Narconon program tended to be slightly younger at their age of fi rst offense. Thehistorical comparison group was slightly older at their age of fi rst offense and slightly younger when sen-tenced than those placed into the Narcon on program .

Table 2 Age Summary

Age at Sentencing Age at Fi rst Offense

Narconon Com plete 74 26

Narconon Incom plete 70 23

H istorical Com parison 4 2


9/18

Table 3 Pre-Program Criminality Summary

Incomplete Complete Historical Comparison

Total crim e 17.0 2.32 15.62 2.08 17.88 3.30

Drug cr im e 3.24 .63 3.53 .74 1.75 .51

M isdem eanor crim e 11.16 1.74 9.98 1.42 10.89 2.30

Felony crim e 1.92 .55 1.34 .53 2.87 .91

There are also som e differences in p re-program crim inality as seen in Table 3. Those youth w ho c om pletedthe Narconon program had fewer total crimes, mostly in the numbers of misdemeanors, than did the othertwo group s. The com parison group had sign ifi cantly fewer drug crim es but m ore felonies.

Table 4 Percent of Each Group Meeting Current Sentencing Guideline Criteria

Complete Incomplete Total

Secure Facili ties

Narconon 1.0 0.0 1.0

H istorical Com parison - - 1.0

Community Placement

Narconon 25.0 7.0 32.0


State Supervision

Narconon 11.0 11.0 22.0


Probation

Narconon 37.0 8.0 45.0


Utah Juvenile Court Administration simulated the 1997 sentencing guidelines paradigm to the historicalcom parison group. In th is way all study youths had sim ilar guidelines applied. Table 4 shows the percent ofeach youth from each group t hat fi t into each available sentencing g uideline. The Narcon on group had sig-nifi cantly higher num bers of youths who m et the Comm unity Placement criteria but were m itigated down forplacem ent into the Narconon program and a correspondingly lower num ber of youths meeting State Supervi-sion guidelines than in the historical com parison group.

Recidivism StatusOf main in terest is the extent to which this intervention paradigm redu ced recidivism . Of the youth who com -pleted the program, 63.5 percent remained com pletely m isdemeanor and felony free during the remain der oftheir juvenile history. This com pares with 19.2 percent of youths w ho did not c om plete the NewLife program

and 30.1 percent of youth in the historical com parison group. Based on a com bined analysis of juvenile andadult records, 32.4 percent of the treated grou p retained th is crim e-free state for four years post-treatm ent,sti l l higher th an the other tw o groups. (Figure 3)


10/18

Irrespective of program com pletion, juveniles who did n ot rem ain com pletely crim e-free showed a 77.7 per-cent reduc tion in c rim inal activity for the duration of th eir records in the Utah Juvenile Justice System . Thiscom pares with a 46.7 percent reduct ion in the historical com parison group.

All groups had improved recidivism rates as adults and there were no detectable differences betweengroups. Figure 3 com pares the crim e-free status for the different g roups across various tim e-frames w ithinthe stud y period.

Figure 3 Percent of Juveni les with no Misdemeanor or Felony Offenses Following Intervent ion

Time Series Analysis

The following graph depicts the quarterly m ean crim es of youth w ho entered the Narcon on program for twoyears before and after the intervention. Q-1 through Q-8 are quarters prior to intervention and Q+ 1 throughQ+ 8 those quarters following intervention. Youths w ho reach th e age of 18 are no longer tracked by theju ven il e c ou rt .

Figure 4 Quar te rly To tal Of fenses Before and After S tate Supervision Sentenc ing

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

63.5%

32.4%

19.2%

15.4%

30.1%

24.1%

Com plete on N N Program In com plete on N N Program Com parison Grou p

Juvenile Juvenile + Adult

3.5

3

2.5

2

1.5

1

0.5

0

Q-8 Q-7 Q-6 Q-5 Q-4 Q-3 Q-2 Q-1 Q+ 1 Q+ 2 Q+ 3 Q+ 4 Q+ 5 Q+ 6 Q+ 7 Q+ 8

4

Sentencing

M

ean

TotalOffen

ses

ComparisonGroup

Incomplete onNN Program

Complete onNN Program

Two Years Before / Aft er State Super vision by Quar ter


11/18

Table 5 Percent Remaining inStudy Group by Quarter

Q+ 1 89.9%

Q+ 2 81.8%

Q+ 3 71.8%

Q+ 4 64.7%

Q+ 5 52.5%

Q+ 6 44.9%

Q+ 7 36.1%

Q+ 8 29.9%

Q+ 9 25.3%

Table 5 shows the percent of youths rem aining in the analysis; attrition from the data set is sim ilar for eachgroup (data not shown).

Pre Treatment and Post Treatment Rate Analyses :The pur pose of these analyses is to address the possibil i ty that youths were crim e-free or com m itted fewer

crim es because they had been placed in settings where the opportunity to com m it offenses was restricted,e.g. a jail or oth er secure setting.

Placement data from court records for the three study groups w ere combin ed and analyzed, to evaluate thefrequency of crim e in various settings.

Table 6 shows the results of this analysis. The total nu m ber of crim es com m itted in a placem ent type dividedby the num ber of days in that placement gives an annu al rate of crim es comm itted in each setting, an indexof the risk for each placement .

Table 6 Number of Offenses Committed, by Placement Setting

Placement Name # Cases w/ Placement Offenses / Year

None - 4.52

AW OL (Escape) 83 6.95

Detention 397 12.56

Jail 26 0.29

Observation & Assessm ent 92 1.11

Com m unity Placem ent 214 1.84

Hom e Deten tion 267 3.46

Secure Fac ili ty 39 0.28

Shelter 7 0.00

Hospital 4 0.00Total 1129 4.02

The opportun ity to com m it offenses was signifi cantly reduced only on days when ju veniles were placed intoja il , l oc ked fac il it ies, a sh el ter or a hospit al . A su bsequen t an alysi s (dat a not sh ow n) ver ifi ed that the cri m e-free status of each grou p was not a refl ection of the fact t hat they had been placed in su ch setting s.


12/18

Placement Analysis:

A second analysis was undertaken in regard to the relationship between placement in secure settings(with reduced opportunity for offenses) and crime rate. This analysis also addressed the extent to whichprogram com pletion reduced th e need for placement in secure settings (one of the goals of the 1997 StateSupervision M andate).

At th e tim e of this analysis, placement data was available for 98 of the 100 youth 73 who com pleted theprogram and 25 who did not. Due to differences in sentencin g gu idelines, this data was n ot analyzed for the

com parison group. An in terrupted tim e series analysis (Figure 5) revealed that program com pletions w hocommitted the least crime also spent the least time in secure settings. Those who did not complete theNarconon program, who c omm itted m ore cr ime, spent m ore t ime in secure sett ings. Thus placement w asfurther elim inated as an explanation for reduced recidivism.

In short, the delivery of the com plete Narcon on program achieved the reduction in placem ents that the courthad h oped to see.

Figure 5 Correct ions Placements : Program Comple tions vs . Non-Comple tions

Cost Savings Potential:

An important measure of success in any justice program is the extent to which that intervention reducessocietys burden of c rim e-related costs. The state of Utah provided the following table of placem ent costs foreach year of the stu dy period.

Table 7 Average Daily Cost Per Youth

Year Residential* Detention Work Camp O & A Secure Facili-ties

1998 $72.26 $127.37 $92.78 $151.75 $148.93

1999 $91.13 $126.86 $101.68 $147.10 $146.58

2000 $109.64 $109.05 $86.31 $125.14 $140.58

2001 $109.27 $118.54 $125.56 $163.85 $191.372002 $108.79 $148.09 $134.90 $199.72 $169.65

*Average of all Residential Service Codes

Nearly 64 percent of the juveniles who completed the program had no additional crime over the two-yearpost program stu dy period and thus inc urred no additional placement c osts. Youth w ho did not com plete theprogr am averaged 156 days in Youth Corr ection s Services (observation and assessm ent or secure facilit ies).Based on the 2002 average cost of $185 per day for these services, prevention of future crime represented apotential saving of $28,875 per youth in p lacement costs alone.

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Quarterly Mean Days in Youth Corrections Facilities (OA,YC or Jail)

M

ean

TotalOffenses

0 Incomplete

1 Complete

Q-9 Q -8 Q-7 Q-6 Q -5 Q-4 Q-3 Q -2 Q-1 Q 0 Q+ 1 Q+ 2 Q+ 3 Q+ 4 Q+ 5 Q+ 6 Q+ 7 Q+ 8 Q+ 9


13/18

This analysis does not includ e other costs, inclu ding c osts of probation offi cers, court fees, the cost of thecrim e itself, and other considerable societal costs resulting from acts of crim e.

A portion of youth who completed the Narconon program were involved in additional, but reduced, crimecom pared with th ose who did n ot com plete the full program . These youth averaged 43 days in Youth Correc-tions services (113 days less than th ose who com pleted the full program ), am ountin g to a potential saving of$20,837 per youth .

Data was n ot available to com pare the average tim e juveniles in the Fourth District spent in su ch servicesprior to implem entation of the new guidelines.

Figure 6 Estimated Cost per Youth of Youth Corrections Services for Two Years Following Intervention

D I S C U S S I O N & C O N C LU S I O N S

Elements of Effective ProgramsFacing enorm ous fi nanc ial and social burdens from drug-related crim e, includ ing the fact that m ore than halfof prisoners are drug offenders, states are increasingly seeking t o identify effective prevention and treatmentprogram s. Program s for juveniles are perhaps the m ost cruc ial; if succ essful, they can alter l i fe patterns thatm ight oth erwise lead to greatly reduced abil i ty to cont ribute to society, if not to career crim inality.

In 1992 Mark Lipsey condu cted a m eta-analysis of m ore than 400 evaluations of juvenile programs an d re-ported an average 10 percent im provem ent in recidivism rates for all programs evaluated.ii i Such studies by

Lipsey and others have identifi ed com ponents of prog ram s that exceeded the average improvement.

The following were found to be components of less effective programs:

Treatment provided in institutions or Boot Camps xi

Parole, supervised probation, diversion (after youths attain m ultiple arrests)xiv

Counseling (group, fam ily or individual) ii i

Deterrence including shock incarceration iii

Treatment provided by the researcher or wh ere the researcher infl uenced th e treatment had larger effectsbecause those effects could n ot be replicated in practic al settings iii

35,000

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0N L Com plete w / n o c rim e N L Com plete w / som e c rim e N L In com plete

Dollars

$0

$8,038

$28,875


14/18

The following were found to be components of more effective programs:

Comm unity based program s run by private providersxiii

Longer duration and frequency of treatment iii,xiii

M ore structured and focused programs iii,xiii

Skil l -or iented, mult im odal treatment xi,iii

Cognitive-behavioral treatments xii

Treatment th at was more sociological and less psychological iii,xiv

Goals of Treatment and InterventionIn order to make further discoveries regardin g the com ponents of effective program s, it is useful to examin e theideal outcom e from a treatment or intervention program . While reducing recidivism is an accepted and validm easure from an adm inistrative perspective, it is possible that there is a broader m easure of rehabilitation .

In m any respects, the concept of self-governance is m ore aligned to the goals of the justice system, and tothe best interests of society. Individuals wh o are able to make their own decisions and to be responsible fortheir own actions are net contrib utors to society.

Figure 7 depict s som e of the c haracteristics of self-governance, and the progressive involvement of the jus-tice system when individuals repeatedly fail to control th eir own actions.

Figure 7 Charac teris tic s of Self- Governanc e

The justice system is concerned solely with those individuals who are not acc ountable for their actions, andwho c annot restrain th emselves from acts that are destruct ive to them selves or others. It is forced to assum eresponsibility for these individuals for the sake of general safety.

In som e cases, punishm ent at wh atever level an offense merits can aw aken a desire for self-governance,wh ether to prevent fu ture loss of liberty or because a basic goodness has been shocked int o life. Un fortun ately,this is not the norm .

Wh ile incarceration, or other sanctions, m ight brin g an individual to a state where he or she l ives in fear of theconsequenc es of another offense, this is far short of self-governanc e. It is not an indic ation that the individualis now prepared to be a contributing m ember of society.

The various com ponents of th e Narconon program are designed to address the question of self-governanc e.This begins with detoxifi cation, intended to give the participant c ontrol over the physical aspects of addiction(i.e., drug cravings) and con tinues throu gh th e other modules. Basic l i teracy and com m unic ation skil ls areessential for self-governance, as is a personal un derstanding of right and wrong behavior. These m atters areaddressed by the Narconon program .

RELEASE

TIME

law breaking

law abiding

socila individualself-correction

24

68

court related sanctions

PROBATION

COMMUNITY PLACEMENT

SECURE FACILITY - JAIL

HIGH SELF GOVERNANCEresponsible

ethicalpro-social

LOW SELF GOVERNAN CE

antisocialunethicalirresponsible


15/18


16/18

Just under half the youths who completed the Narconon program and remained crime-free as youths didresume some criminal activity as adults. It was not possible to examine whether this was a refl ection ofre-entry into un stable family or com m unity situations, gang con tact, or other antisocial infl uences or withcessation of cou rt sup ervision. It m ay be that additional p reventive services or program s are necessary toensure a stable transition into self-governing adulthood. This is another area that sh ould be addressed infuture evaluations.

The adm inistration of a follow-up su rvey that assesses the status of each youth after th ey have left the ju -

venile system would be an important step in forming a more complete picture of the impact of interventionprogram s. The Fourth District Juvenile Court cou ld evaluate the overall change in use of Youth Correctionsservices to determine wheth er this intervention sch eme m et the 5 percent reduction goal.

Given th e encouraging results from this evaluation, the authors feel it is imp ortant to com plete a prospectivestudy of the ful l Narconon N ewLife program th at would permit random assignm ent and al low c omparison toalternate programs that now exist within th e Fourth D istrict. Such a study would yield additional inform ationfrom youths that could h elp to answer the question, W hat works?

From every perspectivewhether government, the crime victim, society at large, or even the juvenile offend-err ehabilitation offers greater long-term ben efi ts than pu nish m ent alone. Earlier research h as suggestedthat rehabil i tative programs c an reduce recidivism , an observation confi rmed by the N arconon/Fourth D istrictpartnership. It is in th e interest of all to implem ent m ore such program s and to furth er evaluate their impact.

Contact, Fourth District Juvenile Court:

Kimbal Bird, Chief of ProbationState of UtahFourth District Juvenile Court2021 South StateProvo, UT 84606801-354-7218kimbalb@email .utcourts.gov


17/18

R ef er ences

i Nat ional Governors A ssociat ion, Center for Best Pract ices, Issue Brief, October 11, 2002.

ii 1995 Services Resource Outcom e Study (SROS), US N ational Institute on Drug Abuse.

ii i Lipsey MW. Juvenile delinquency treatment: A m eta-analytic in quiry into the variabil i ty of effects. In: CookTD, Cooper H, Cordray DS, Hartmann h, Hedges LV, Light RJ, Louis TA and Mosteller F (Eds). Meta Analysis

for Explanation : A Casebook. N Y: Russell Sage Foundat ion, 1992.

iv Colum bia University for the National Center on Addic tion and Substan ce Abuse. The Impac t of SubstanceAbuse on State Budgets, 2001 HYPERLINK http://ww w.casacolum bia.org www.casacolum bia.org

v M inu tes of th e Juvenile Justic e Task Force, Jun e 20, 1997.

vi Van Vleet RK, Davis MJ, Barusch A, DeWitt J, Br ynes EC. Im pact of an Early Intervention M andate: The Ju-venile Sentencing Guidelines and Interm ediate Sanctions in U tah Final Report. National Institut e of Justice.Sept 22, 2001, Pg 35.

vii Schnare DW, Denk G, Shields M, and Brun ton S. Evaluation of a regim ent for fat stored xenobiotics. MedicalHypothesis 1982; 9:265-282.

viii Shields M, Beckm ann S, Tennent F, and Wisner RM . Reduction of d rug residues: Applications in drug re-habil i tation. Presented at the 123rd Annual M eeting of the American Public Health Association.

ix Beckm ann S Narcon on: An overview of the drug rehabil i tation program. Narconon International, 1995.

x Federal Bureau of Prisons: Quick Facts. http://www.bop.gov/fact0598.html

xi Greenw ood PW. Respondin g to Ju venile Crim e: Lessons Learned. The Juvenile Court 6(3) 75-85, 1996.

xii Lipsey M W, Chapm an GL, Landenberger N A. Cognitive-behavioral program s for offenders. Ann als of th eAmerican Academy of Political and Social Science 578(November): 144-157, 2001.

xiii Andrews DA et al., Does Correctional Treatment Work? A clin ically relevant and psychologically informedm eta-analysis. Crim inolog y 369(377) 384-86, 1990.

xiv Andrews DA et al., Does Correctional Treatment Work? A clin ically relevant and psychologically informedm eta-analysis. Crim inolog y 369(377) 384-86, 1990.

A Utah Juvenile Court Case Study

Documents

Transcript of A Utah Juvenile Court Case Study