Los Angeles County Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act
Los Angeles County Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act: Fiscal Year 2012–2013 Report
Terry Fain
Susan Turner
Sarah Michal Greathouse
Copyright Date: 2014
Published by: RAND Corporation
Pages: 162
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7249/j.ctt14bs1r3
Search for reviews of this book
Book Info
Los Angeles County Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act
Book Description:

California’s Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act provides funds for counties to offer evidence-based programs for high-need juvenile probationers and at-risk youth. This report, based on the annual report to the state legislature, outlines the program’s success for six outcome measures (completion of probation, restitution, and community service; arrests; probation violations; and incarcerations) and county-required supplemental outcomes.

eISBN: 978-0-8330-8983-0
Subjects: Law, History, Political Science, Sociology
You do not have access to this book on JSTOR. Try logging in through your institution for access.
Log in to your personal account or through your institution.
Table of Contents
Export Selected Citations Export to NoodleTools Export to RefWorks Export to EasyBib Export a RIS file (For EndNote, ProCite, Reference Manager, Zotero, Mendeley...) Export a Text file (For BibTex)
Select / Unselect all
  1. Front Matter
    Front Matter (pp. i-ii)
  2. Preface
    Preface (pp. iii-iv)
  3. Table of Contents
    Table of Contents (pp. v-viii)
  4. Figures
    Figures (pp. ix-x)
  5. Tables
    Tables (pp. xi-xiv)
  6. Summary
    Summary (pp. xv-xxviii)
  7. Acknowledgments
    Acknowledgments (pp. xxix-xxx)
  8. Abbreviations
    Abbreviations (pp. xxxi-xxxiv)
  9. CHAPTER ONE Background and Methodology
    CHAPTER ONE Background and Methodology (pp. 1-8)

    In 2000, the California state legislature passed the Schiff-Cardenas Crime Prevention Act (Assembly Bill [AB] 1913), which authorized funding for county juvenile justice programs and designated the Board of Corrections (BOC) the administrator of funding. A 2001 California Senate bill extended the funding and changed the program’s name to the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA). This effort was designed to provide a stable funding source for juvenile programs that have been proven effective in curbing crime among at-risk and young offenders (Board of State and Community Corrections [BSCC], 2014). Counties were asked to submit plans to the state for...

  10. CHAPTER TWO Current JJCPA Programs and FY 2012–2013 Outcome Measures
    CHAPTER TWO Current JJCPA Programs and FY 2012–2013 Outcome Measures (pp. 9-58)

    In this chapter, we report outcome measures for each JJCPA program in Los Angeles County in FY 2012–2013, including the big six outcome measures mandated by the BSCC, as well as supplemental outcome measures specific to individual JJCPA programs.

    As we noted in Chapter One, legislation specified that JJCPA programs target at-risk juveniles, juvenile offenders, and their families (AB 1913, 2000). Although the BSCC does not require details about the characteristics of JJCPA participants, many participants are fairly high risk because the program specifically targets youth who live or attend school in 85 high-risk areas of Los Angeles County....

  11. CHAPTER THREE Juvenile Justice Costs for JJCPA Participants
    CHAPTER THREE Juvenile Justice Costs for JJCPA Participants (pp. 59-76)

    In this chapter, we present analyses of the costs associated with JJCPA programs. Ours does not purport to be a comprehensive benefit-cost analysis to determine whether programs “pay for themselves” in the long run (see, e.g., Aos et al., 2004). Such an analysis would require longitudinal data, as well as extensive data on an appropriate comparison group, neither of which is available to us. Instead, we simply measure the juvenile justice and related costs that we are able to determine based on our limited data, comparing costs accrued by program participants in the six months prior to program entry and...

  12. CHAPTER FOUR Summary and Conclusions
    CHAPTER FOUR Summary and Conclusions (pp. 77-84)

    In this chapter, we summarize the evaluation findings for FY 2012–2013. In addition, we comment on limitations of the evaluation and offer suggestions for improving the research design for a subset of JJCPA programs.

    Overall, for big six and supplementary outcomes, program youth showed significantly more positive outcomes than comparison-group youth.

    In programs that used historical comparison groups, only a few big six outcomes differed significantly between the two cohorts, thus meeting the program goal of doing at least as well as the previous year’s cohort.

    Simple comparisons between the groups were, for the most part, supported by difference-in-differences...

  13. APPENDIX A Community Providers of JJCPA Program Services
    APPENDIX A Community Providers of JJCPA Program Services (pp. 85-96)
  14. APPENDIX B Comparison Groups and Reference Periods for JJCPA Programs
    APPENDIX B Comparison Groups and Reference Periods for JJCPA Programs (pp. 97-98)
  15. APPENDIX C Probation’s Ranking of the Big Six Outcome Measures
    APPENDIX C Probation’s Ranking of the Big Six Outcome Measures (pp. 99-100)
  16. APPENDIX D Community-Based Organizations That Contracted to Provide Services for JJCPA Programs in FY 2012–2013
    APPENDIX D Community-Based Organizations That Contracted to Provide Services for JJCPA Programs in FY 2012–2013 (pp. 101-102)
  17. APPENDIX E Board of State and Community Corrections–Mandated and Supplemental Outcomes for Individual JJCPA Programs, FY 2012–2013
    APPENDIX E Board of State and Community Corrections–Mandated and Supplemental Outcomes for Individual JJCPA Programs, FY 2012–2013 (pp. 103-116)
  18. APPENDIX F Board of State and Community Corrections–Mandated Outcomes, by Gender
    APPENDIX F Board of State and Community Corrections–Mandated Outcomes, by Gender (pp. 117-120)
  19. APPENDIX G Board of State and Community Corrections–Mandated Outcomes, by Cluster
    APPENDIX G Board of State and Community Corrections–Mandated Outcomes, by Cluster (pp. 121-122)
  20. Bibliography
    Bibliography (pp. 123-128)
RAND Corporation logo