Skip to Main Content
Have library access? Log in through your library
Los Angeles County Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act

Los Angeles County Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act: Fiscal Year 2011–2012 Report

Terry Fain
Susan Turner
Sarah Michal Greathouse
Copyright Date: 2013
Published by: RAND Corporation
Pages: 160
  • Cite this Item
  • Book Info
    Los Angeles County Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act
    Book Description:

    This annual report for the California Board of State and Community Corrections measures the success of Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act programs and initiatives for six state-mandated outcome measures (successful completion of probation, arrests, probation violations, incarcerations, successful completion of restitution, and successful completion of community service) and county-required supplemental measures.

    eISBN: 978-0-8330-8371-5
    Subjects: Law, Political Science, History

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)
  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)
  7. Acknowledgments
    (pp. xxvii-xxviii)
  8. Abbreviations
    (pp. xxix-xxxii)
  9. 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], 2013). Counties were asked to submit plans to the state for...

  10. CHAPTER TWO Current JJCPA Programs and FY 2011–2012 Outcome Measures
    (pp. 9-56)

    In this chapter, we report outcome measures for each JJCPA program in Los Angeles County in FY 2011–2012, including the big six outcome measures mandated by 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 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. The Probation...

  11. CHAPTER THREE Juvenile Justice Costs for JJCPA Participants
    (pp. 57-74)

    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 assignment to camp

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

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

  12. CHAPTER FOUR Summary and Conclusions
    (pp. 75-82)

    In this chapter, we summarize the evaluation findings for FY 2011–2012. 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 90 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 probation and community service at significantly higher rates than comparison-group...

  13. APPENDIX A Community Providers of JJCPA Program Services
    (pp. 83-94)
  14. APPENDIX B Comparison Groups and Reference Periods for JJCPA Programs
    (pp. 95-96)
  15. APPENDIX C Probationʹs Ranking of the Big Six Outcome Measures
    (pp. 97-98)
  16. APPENDIX D Community-Based Organizations That Contracted to Provide Services for JJCPA Programs in FY 2011–2012
    (pp. 99-100)
  17. APPENDIX E Board of State and Community Corrections–Mandated and Supplemental Outcomes for Individual JJCPA Programs, FY 2011–2012
    (pp. 101-114)
  18. APPENDIX F Board of State and Community Corrections–Mandated Outcomes, by Gender
    (pp. 115-118)
  19. APPENDIX G Board of State and Community Corrections–Mandated Outcomes, by Cluster
    (pp. 119-122)
  20. References
    (pp. 123-128)