Preventing Delinquency & Promoting Prosocial Activities

Evidence-Based Practices Brief #2. Recognizing the need to support youth before problem behaviors take shape, prevention programs emerged in the 1970s to address the needs of youth and families; however, these early programs were rarely rooted in either theory or research on childhood development. Consequently, programs began incorporating information gleaned from longitudinal studies to address specific risk factors identified as predictive of problem behaviors in youth. In the 1980s, prevention efforts often focused on a single problem behavior, however in the early 1990s, consensus emerged that programs should expand beyond focusing on a single problem behavior and instead examine co-occurrence of problem behaviors and common predictors of multiple problem behaviors (Catalano et al., 2004). Further, prevention efforts recognized that promoting positive youth development was just as important as avoiding negative behaviors (Catalano et al., 2004; W.T. Grant Consortium, 1992)

Therapeutic vs. Control Treatment Philosophies

Evidence-Based Practice Brief #1. Control techniques include programs aimed to deter negative behavior through fear of consequences (e.g., jail tours, court tours) and programs emphasizing surveillance to detect negative behavior.1 Other deterrence and surveillance type techniques include inappropriate drug testing (i.e., when youth does not have substance abuse issues), electronic monitoring, and excessive monitoring or supervision

Evaluation of Lancaster County Early Assessment Process

In January 2009, Lancaster County implemented an early screening and assessment process. The goal of this pilot project was to ensure consistent processing of juvenile offenses, especially for very young offenders, and to ensure that youth were matched to the most appropriate early intervention. The Juvenile Justice Institute was invited to evaluate the effectiveness of this early intervention. Little is known about the effect this project has had on official juvenile court processing of youth, so another important question is how this early process has impacted the overall number of youth entering the Lancaster County juvenile justice system. To evaluate the overall effect of the early screening process, we examined: 1) the process itself, 2) data on youth referred to the early screening process, and 3) trends in Lancaster County’s juvenile justice system. We analyzed three aspects of the process itself including: how long it takes a case to progress through the early assessment program, the assessment instrument utilized, and legal aspects related to this intervention. One important finding is that this early intervention is not available to all Lancaster County youth. Another key finding is that often the prosecuting attorney’s decision did not coincide with the Assessment Specialist’s recommendation. Most importantly, we found that this early intervention did not increase the number of youth entering the juvenile justice system in Lancaster County; nor did it increase the number of younger children being brought into the system. Trend data indicate that as Lancaster County becomes more reliant on alternative programs like the early assessment program, the number of youth officially processed through the courts has declined. This trend has not been consistently downward, and has fluctuated from year to year, so Lancaster County should remain vigilant and reexamine this baseline data in a few years

School Resource Officer Contacts and Perceptions

Evidence-Based Practices Brief #4 SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS •As compared to school population demographics in each respective county, American Indian/Alaskan Native youth in Sheridan county and Hispanic youth in Howard county were disproportionately contacted. A large proportion of race/ethnicity data was missing in Dakota county. • Younger youth and youth without a previous law violation were less likely to have a punitive discharge (i.e., expulsion, citation, referral to probation) from SROs; youth from Howard county were more likely to have a punitive discharge than youth in Dakota and Sheridan. • SROs reported that most interactions with students were positive and that there was a general sense of school safety and positive school climates. Though the majority of interactions were perceived to be positive, older students and parents were more likely to express negative views of police to SROs

Nebraska\u27s Community-based Aid Mental Health Services

Evidence-Based Practices Brief #5 Research finds that mental health symptoms are prevalent amongst youths in the juvenile justice system (Teplin et al. 2015), with clinical prevalence rates as high as 70% (Vincent et al., 2008), compared with an estimated 9 to 22% of the general population (Shubert & Mulvey, 2014). Studies have found that the prevalence rates of mental health disorders increases at each juvenile justice system point—with prevalence rates lowest when examining youth at intake (e.g., probation or family court) and becoming greater as we examine later system points, such as diversion (Wylie & Rufino), detention, and post-adjudicatory correctional facilities (Wasserman et al. 2010)

Crisis Response Programs FY 2015-2020

There are a significant proportion of youth with mental and behavioral health issues, often undiagnosed or untreated, that may contribute to problems at school, home, and within the community. Families and others may not know how to best handle the crisis and often turn to law enforcement or emergency departments to assist; however, this can lead to unintended negative outcomes for youth. To best address crises, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) states that communities should have a well-developed continuum of crisis services. Crisis services are “no-wrong-door” safety net services that are available for “anyone, anywhere and anytime” (SAMSHA, 2020, p. 8). If interested in learning more about best practices in a crisis continuum of care, we suggest the reader obtain The National Guidelines for Behavioral Health Crisis Care – A Best Practice Toolkit (SAMSHA, 2020), which provides guidelines for implementation and evaluation of crisis services. Crisis response programs are one cog in a continuum of crisis services. In Nebraska, most crisis response services are currently provided by Nebraska Systems of Care through the Regions (with the exception of Region 6). Some services, however, are supported with funds from the Nebraska Community-based Juvenile Services Aid program (CBA). While the focus of the current report are CBA-funded programs in counties that are located in Region 6, we also describe evidence-based models utilized nationally (i.e., Crisis Intervention Teams; Mobile Crisis Services). Currently, only two crisis response programs are funded by CBA; however, this may increase if the Systems of Care SAMSHA grant awarded to the state is not renewed. Overall, the crisis response programs that are the subject of this report are effectively working with law enforcement, keeping youth in crisis in the community and not detention/hospitals, and establishing crisis plans with youth to reduce the risk of crisis in the future

Hall County Detention Utilization Study 2015-2020

Over the past twenty-five years, the Annie E. Casey Foundation’s Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative®, or JDAI, has worked closely with local jurisdictions to examine the appropriate use of juvenile detention. The University of Nebraska at Omaha’s Juvenile Justice Institute (JJI) has been in the forefront of juvenile justice reform and policy work since it was legislatively created in 2002. JJI staff and faculty have completed detention utilization studies in other Nebraska JDAI sites and play an active role in statewide JDAI committees and committees in local jurisdictions. The recommendations from this report are designed to help Hall County professionals decide the best use of detention and where changes can be made to better serve youth and possibly realize cost savings. This work aligns with the core values of JDAI by analyzing whether low risk youth are being detained, identifying opportunities to reduce length of stay, and by determining whether racial and ethnic disparities exist in detention

Recruiting and Retaining Higher Risk Youth in Promotion and Prevention Programs FY 2018-2019

Evidence-based practices for reducing youth involvement in the criminal justice system have gained a considerable amount of attention over the past few decades. One such practice is delinquency prevention and promotion (PP) programs, which aim to promote positive behaviors and prevent negative behaviors. Research has demonstrated that PP programs can target risk factors at different stages of development thought to contribute to antisocial behavior, reducing the likelihood of criminal justice involvement (Pardini, 2016). Once a program is in place, however, recruiting the youth most likely to benefit from the program and retaining those youth can be a significant challenge. Specifically, research has shown that youth of color are less likely to participate in out-of-school activities compared to White youth and youth living in poverty are less likely to participate than youth of higher income families (Theokas & Bloch, 2006). This report focuses on what PP programs in one state are doing to ensure they are recruiting and retaining the appropriate youth and crucially includes youth’s own experiences about why they began attending the program and why they continue to come back. This report includes 13 of the 33 FY 2018-2019 Nebraska state-funded PP programs. A mixed-methods approach was employed with Juvenile Justice Institute researchers conducting 13 focus groups with 204 youth and 13 in-person or phone interviews with PP program coordinators. The focus groups were semi-structured with open-ended questions designed to facilitate discussion about youth participants and program activities. One-on-one interviews with PP program coordinators were semi-structured focusing on identifying and understanding effective strategies for recruitment and retention. Based on discussions with youth and program coordinators, several strategies for effective recruitment and retention are suggested: •utilize current participants in efforts to attract more youth •collaborate with established local community programs •offer diverse activities based on youth’s backgrounds •ensure location and time of program is as convenient for the youth as possible •involve family members and support networks •offer food or snacks •offer incentives for regular attendance •help the youth see the benefit of program attendance Overall, nearly every program self-identified areas for improvement, summarized in the recommendations outlined below. In order to maximize their impact, PP programs need to pay special attention to who they are attracting to ensure youth who are most likely to benefit from the program are being captured. While the focus groups were successful at gaining an in-depth understanding of youth experiences, there were some drawbacks to this method. First, our ideal sample size for a focus group was about 10 participants to allow for healthy discussion of the topics and gather participants’ diverse experiences. Unfortunately, many of the focus groups did not reach this ideal size typically because programs did not have enough youth attend on a regular basis. Second, researchers were unable to conduct some focus groups because either the programs met only a few times a year or sessions were rescheduled at the last minute. Finally, the focus groups’ effectiveness depended on the degree to which youth were familiar with the overarching program goals

School Interventionists FY 2015-2020

School Interventionists identify and coordinate behavioral or academic intervention for a student. Youth can be referred to the School Interventionist for attendance issues, poor grades, lack of engagement, and/or behavior issues. The intervention process includes clearly identifying the problem, selecting a strategy to address the problem, and measuring the effectiveness of the strategy. The intervention can include other supports for the youth within the school or community. In interviewing School Interventionists, they are often responsible for addressing a range of school and home issues, and often use a range of activities to do so. These activities fall within three identified evidence-based practices including: building social and emotional competencies, focusing on protective factors to improve school engagement, and being a supportive adult and building relationships with youth they serve. Of the eight programs that have been funded over the course of the project, two of the School Interventionists programs receive referrals from diversion programs and serve youth on diversion who are also having school issues. The other programs often receive referrals from school counselors or other mental health/social workers. Generally, Interventionists focus on school-related issues, such as improving grades, attendance, or school engagement; however, they also focus on addressing issues at home. One program primarily addressed absenteeism. The programs varied in terms of the level of risk of the youth served. While some indicated higher rates of prior law violations, others reported a higher level of aggressive behavior and many reported youth came from high risk environments. Four of the programs had sufficient cases to examine outcomes (at least 80% of their cases were discharged). Of these, there were high rates of youth successfully completing the program (or a neutral discharge, such as transferring schools). In examining school-related outcomes for two of these programs that had sufficient data to do so (at least 80% of the data was complete), School Interventionists appear to be most successful at improving grades and improving school engagement, with less success at improving attendance (in both programs attendance did not improve). We were able to examine future system involvement for the four programs. Specifically, each program had between 1.3% and 2.4% of youth with a status offense court filing. Law violation rates were more variable across programs—with a range of 1.6% to 13.1%. Programs with higher future system involvement rates were also those programs with higher risk youth, based on information programs provided about high-risk environment, aggressive behavior, and previous law violations