Los Angeles County Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act

Los Angeles County Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act: Fiscal Year 2010–2011 Report

Terry Fain
Susan Turner
Greg Ridgeway
Copyright Date: 2012
Published by: RAND Corporation
Pages: 156
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7249/j.ctt3fh0ms
Search for reviews of this book
  • Cite this Item
  • Book Info
    Los Angeles County Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act
    Book Description:

    The Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act funds programs that have been proven effective in curbing crime among juvenile probationers and young at-risk offenders. This report summarizes, for fiscal year 2010–2011, Corrections Standards Authority–mandated outcome measures from each of the programs, as well as county-determined supplemental outcomes.

    eISBN: 978-0-8330-7944-2
    Subjects: Law, Education, Sociology

Table of Contents

  1. Front Matter
    (pp. i-ii)
  2. Preface
    (pp. iii-iv)
  3. Table of Contents
    (pp. v-viii)
  4. Figures
    (pp. ix-x)
  5. Tables
    (pp. xi-xiv)
  6. Summary
    (pp. xv-xxvi)

    In 2000, the California state legislature passed the Schiff-Cardenas Crime Prevention Act, 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.

    JJCPA provided funds to counties to add evidence-based programs and services for

    juvenile probationers identified with higher needs for special services than...

  7. Acknowledgments
    (pp. xxvii-xxviii)
  8. Abbreviations
    (pp. xxix-xxx)
  9. CHAPTER ONE Background and Methodology
    (pp. 1-8)

    In 2000, the California state legislature passed the Schiff-Cardenas Crime Prevention Act, 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 (California Board of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 2012). Counties were asked to submit plans to the state for funding to identify programs that...

  10. CHAPTER TWO Current JJCPA Programs and FY 2010–2011 Outcome Measures
    (pp. 9-58)

    In this chapter, we report outcome measures for each JJCPA program in Los Angeles County in FY 2010–2011, including the big six outcome measures mandated by CSA, 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 CSA does not require details about the characteristics of JJCPA participants, many are fairly high risk because the program specifically targets youth who live or attend school in 85 high-risk areas of Los Angeles County. The Probation Department...

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

    In this chapter, we present analyses of the costs associated with JJCPA programs. The purpose of these analyses is to determine whether the programs “pay for themselves” by reducing juvenile justice costs enough to offset the costs of administering the program. For a given individual, total juvenile justice costs include

    program costs: per diem costs of providing program services

    program supervision costs: per diem costs for DPO supervision

    juvenile-camp costs: per diem costs for consignment to camp

    juvenile hall costs: per diem costs for confinement to juvenile hall

    arrest costs: the cost per arrest by city or county law enforcement...

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

    In this chapter, we summarize the evaluation findings for FY 2010–2011. In addition, we comment on limitations of the evaluation and offer suggestions for improving the research design for a subset of JJCPA programs.

    Because youth in the MH program represent 80 percent of all youth in the Enhanced Mental Health Services initiative for whom big six outcomes were reported, the results for the initiative as a whole will necessarily be primarily influenced by those for the MH program. JJCPA youth in the Enhanced Mental Health Services initiative completed restitution at a significantly higher rate than comparison-group youth. Comparison-group...

  13. APPENDIX A Community Providers of JJCPA Program Services
    (pp. 85-96)
  14. 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
    (pp. 99-100)
  16. APPENDIX D Community-Based Organizations That Contracted to Provide Services for JJCPA Programs in FY 2010–2011
    (pp. 101-102)
  17. APPENDIX E Corrections Standards Authority–Mandated and Supplemental Outcomes for Individual JJCPA Programs, FY 2010–2011
    (pp. 103-116)
  18. APPENDIX F Corrections Standards Authority–Mandated Outcomes, by Gender
    (pp. 117-120)
  19. APPENDIX G Corrections Standards Authority–Mandated Outcomes, by Cluster
    (pp. 121-122)
  20. Bibliography
    (pp. 123-126)