Evidence-Based Practice in Juvenile Justice: Progress, Challenges, and Opportunities

124 Pages·2014·2.233 MB·English

by  Peter Greenwood (auth.)

SPRINGER BRIEFS IN CRIMINOLOGY
TRANSLATIONAL CRIMINOLOGY
Peter Greenwood
Evidence-Based
Practice in
Juvenile Justice
Progress,
Challenges, and
Opportunities
SpringerBriefs in Criminology
Translational Criminology
Series Editors
Cynthia Lum
Christopher Koper
George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA
Editorial Board
John Laub, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA
Laurie O. Robinson, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, USA
David Weisburd, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA
The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel
For further volumes:
http://www.springer.com/series/11178
Evidence-based crime policy is not just about rigorously generating a strong sup-
ply of research; it also involves meeting the demands for research in practice and
policy. Knowing “what works” in reducing crime or increasing justice, or knowing
“what explains” through rigorous criminological testing still must be converted to
meaningful forms and implemented with fidelity in order for practice to be recep-
tive to research. But how does this actually happen?
An important concept in the field of evidence-based crime policy is transla-
tional criminology, or how, why, and under what conditions research is converted
to, and used, in practice. This Springer Brief series on translational criminology
brings to both the academe and criminal justice world examples of how research
turns into practice and policy, and the challenges thereof. Each brief will be writ-
ten by top scholars and/or practitioners in the field who will describe specific
examples of how a body of research became practice (or didn’t) and the lessons
learned from the endeavor. Through these examples, we hope ideas can develop
about carrying out (and also testing) research translation.
Peter Greenwood
Evidence-Based Practice
in Juvenile Justice
Progress, Challenges, and Opportunities
1 3
Peter Greenwood
Advancing Evidence-Based Practice
Agoura, CA
USA
ISSN 2194-6442 ISSN 2194-6450 (electronic)
ISBN 978-1-4614-8907-8 ISBN 978-1-4614-8908-5 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-8908-5
Springer New York Heidelberg Dordrecht London
Library of Congress Control Number: 2013947370
© The Author(s) 2014
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or
information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar
methodology now known or hereafter developed. Exempted from this legal reservation are brief excerpts
in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis or material supplied specifically for the purpose of
being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work.
Duplication of this publication or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the Copyright
Law of the Publisher’s location, in its current version, and permission for use must always be obtained
from Springer. Permissions for use may be obtained through RightsLink at the Copyright Clearance
Center. Violations are liable to prosecution under the respective Copyright Law.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
While the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of
publication, neither the authors nor the editors nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for
any errors or omissions that may be made. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied, with
respect to the material contained herein.
Printed on acid-free paper
Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)
Contents
1 Introduction ................................................ 1
2 Overview of the Evidence ..................................... 3
2.1 Evidence-Based Programs ................................. 3
2.2 Implementation Science ................................... 7
3 State Progress Implementing Evidence-Based Programs ........... 9
3.1 Availability of Evidence-Based Programs ..................... 9
3.2 Commonalities Between Leading States ...................... 11
4 Connecticut and Hawaii: Early Starters With Quite
Different Results ............................................ 13
4.1 Connecticut ............................................. 13
4.1.1 Crisis of Confidence ................................ 13
4.1.2 Center for Best Practices (CBP) ....................... 15
4.1.3 Partnerships and Governance ......................... 18
4.1.4 Accomplishments .................................. 18
4.1.5 Quality Assurance and Improvement ................... 21
4.1.6 Training, Public Awareness, and Education .............. 21
4.2 Hawaii ................................................ 22
4.2.1 EBP Comes to the Islands ........................... 22
4.2.2 Hawaii Mental Health .............................. 23
5 Maine and New Mexico: Small Centralized Systems are Easier
to Change .................................................. 27
5.1 Maine: Centralized and Networked .......................... 27
5.1.1 Juvenile Justice in Maine ............................ 29
5.1.2 The University of Maine, Orono ...................... 31
5.1.3 Muskie School of Public Service, University of Southern
Maine ........................................... 32
5.1.4 National Institute of Corrections Project ................ 33
5.1.5 Juvenile Justice Advisory Group ...................... 33
5.1.6 Juvenile Justice Task Force .......................... 34
v
vi Contents
5.1.7 Barriers and Issues in Maine ........................ 35
5.1.8 Lessons Learned .................................. 36
5.2 New Mexico ............................................ 37
5.2.1 Juvenile Justice in New Mexico ...................... 37
5.2.2 The New Mexico MST Outcomes Tracking Project
July 2005–December 2010 .......................... 39
5.2.3 Outcomes ....................................... 40
5.2.4 Other Program Models ............................. 41
5.2.5 Juvenile Justice Program Inventory ................... 42
6 Louisiana: A Model for Change ................................ 45
6.1 Introduction ............................................ 45
6.2 How Reform Got Started .................................. 46
6.3 Screening, Assessment and Tracking ......................... 48
6.4 Governance and Infrastructure .............................. 50
6.5 Juvenile Justice Legislation ................................ 50
6.6 MacArthur Foundation’s Models for Change Initiative ........... 52
6.7 MfC Target Areas of Improvement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
6.8 Outcomes and Accomplishments ............................ 58
6.9 Lessons Learned ......................................... 60
7 Pennsylvania, Washington, Florida and California: Helping
or Letting it Happen ......................................... 63
7.1 Pennsylvania: A Decentralized Early Starter ................... 63
7.1.1 Overview ....................................... 63
7.1.2 History and Development ........................... 63
7.1.3 The Early Days ................................... 64
7.1.4 Key Players ...................................... 65
7.1.5 Partnerships and Governance ........................ 69
7.1.6 Funding ......................................... 71
7.1.7 Outcomes ....................................... 72
7.1.8 Lessons Learned .................................. 75
7.2 Washington State: By the Numbers .......................... 76
7.2.1 Overview ....................................... 76
7.2.2 Introduction ..................................... 77
7.2.3 The Community Juvenile Corrections Act .............. 78
7.2.4 Research Centers ................................. 78
7.2.5 Risk Assessment .................................. 83
7.2.6 Quality Assurance and Improvement .................. 83
7.2.7 Oversight ....................................... 84
7.2.8 Funding ......................................... 85
7.2.9 Other Initiatives .................................. 85
7.2.10 Results ......................................... 86
7.2.11 Lessons Learned .................................. 87
Contents vii
7.3 Florida: Outsourcing EBP ................................. 87
7.3.1 Early Attempts to Adopt Evidence-Based Programs ....... 88
7.3.2 Looking for Answers to Implementation Problems ........ 88
7.3.3 A Legislative and Executive Partnership:
The Redirection Project ............................. 89
7.3.4 Scaling Up Redirection: An Implementation Model ....... 90
7.4 California: Letting it Happen ............................... 91
7.4.1 Overview ........................................ 91
7.4.2 Juvenile Justice in California ......................... 93
7.4.3 An Extra Long Exploration Phase ..................... 93
7.4.4 Evidence Based Programming for Juveniles in California ... 94
7.4.5 The Future ....................................... 99
8 Lessons for Potential Champions in Other States ................. 101
8.1 Summary of Findings ..................................... 102
8.2 Seven Lessons .......................................... 103
References .................................................... 105
Index ......................................................... 113
Abstract
In 15 years, evidence-based practice in juvenile justice has moved from concept
to full blown practice in a number of states which have used research-based prin-
ciples and programs to completely reorganize their system for treating juveniles,
reduced crime and recidivism, and saved money in the process. This Brief will
describe the major players in this transformative process, and the particular role
they play in moving research to practice.
Keywords Violence prevention • Evidence-based programs • Implementation • 
Juvenile justice • Juvenile corrections
ix
Chapter 1
Introduction
It has been almost 15 years since the Blueprints for Violence Prevention program
at the University of Colorado rfi st identiefi d 10 programs that met their rigorous
standards for being called a proven model program. During this same period, econ-
omists developed cost-benetfi models that allowed them to estimate, with a fair
degree of accuracy, the likely costs and benetfis that would result if these programs
were adopted, in particular settings. These cost-benetfi studies suggested that in
most states, every dollar invested in one of the more effective programs would
result in $7–10 in benetfis to taxpayers, mostly in the form of reduced spending on
prison construction and operations (Drake et al. 2009; Greenwood 2006).
If these facts are indeed accurate then one might think that every state would
be in the process of revising their service delivery and case disposition processes
to take advantage of the opportunity. In fact, a number of states have responded to
this knowledge by taking explicit steps to facilitate the implementation of these
proven programs, often as alternatives or replacements for their more traditional
programming. They have screened the lists of evidence-based programs (EBPs)
put forward by various groups and adopted their own list of proven programs they
support. They have established special funding streams to support the launch of
new EBPs. They have adopted common assessment instruments so that different
localities can compare results.
Some of these states have even set up resource centers to provide technical
assistance to local providers and to monitor their progress in implementing these
programs. Some have established local “compacts” for sharing the expected sav-
ings in state prison costs with counties who cut their admission rates through the
use of EBPs. Yet, many others have not taken any but the most rudimentary steps
toward embracing this new opportunity in the field of delinquency prevention.
Although the arguments in favor of shifting resources to evidence-based prac-
tice may sound compelling, the obstacles can be substantial. The first is financial.
Prevention programs require coordinated local investment and action involving:
juvenile courts, probation, mental health, public health, child welfare, education,
and other stakeholders. Most of the direct financial benefits accrue to the state in
P. Greenwood, Evidence-Based Practice in Juvenile Justice, 1
SpringerBriefs in Translational Criminology, DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4614-8908-5_1,
© The Author(s) 2014