Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Improving continuity of care in the juvenile justice system: A pilot proposal
(USC Thesis Other)
Improving continuity of care in the juvenile justice system: A pilot proposal
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running Head: CAPSTONE PROJECT PAPER AND PROTOTYPE 1
Improving Continuity of Care in the Juvenile Justice System: A Pilot Proposal
Liovardo Ochoa
SOWK 722
Capstone Project and Prototype
Submitted to the Faculty of the
Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of Social Work
University of Southern California
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Social Work
(Social Work)
August 2020
CAPSTONE PROJECT PAPER AND PROTOTYPE
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... 3
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK .................................................................................................................. 5
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM .............................................................................................................................. 5
Origins ...................................................................................................................................................... 5
Disproportionate minority contact (DMC) ................................................................................................ 6
SOCIAL SIGNIFICANCE ......................................................................................................................................... 8
Social norms ............................................................................................................................................. 8
Media influence ...................................................................................................................................... 11
LITERATURE AND PRACTICE REVIEW OF THE PROBLEM ............................................................................................ 12
LOGIC MODEL ................................................................................................................................................ 15
PROBLEMS OF PRACTICE AND INNOVATION SOLUTIONS ....................................................................... 20
EVIDENCE AND CURRENT CONTEXT FOR PROPOSED INNOVATION .............................................................................. 20
COMPARATIVE MARKET ANALYSIS....................................................................................................................... 22
Los Angeles County Probation ................................................................................................................ 23
PROPOSED INNOVATION AND ITS EFFECTS ON THE GRAND CHALLENGE....................................................................... 25
PROJECT STRUCTURE AND METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................... 26
DESCRIPTION OF CAPSTONE DELIVERABLE/ARTIFACT .............................................................................................. 26
Staffing ................................................................................................................................................... 28
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION METHODS/COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES ...................................................................... 28
Exploration.............................................................................................................................................. 29
Preparation ............................................................................................................................................. 30
Implementation ...................................................................................................................................... 30
Sustainment ............................................................................................................................................ 31
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT PLAN ..................................................................................................................... 32
FINANCIAL PLANS AND STAGING ......................................................................................................................... 33
PROJECT IMPACT/ASSESSMENT METHODS ........................................................................................................... 35
CONCLUSIONS, ACTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS ....................................................................................... 37
ATTACHMENTS .................................................................................................................................. 40
REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................... 44
CAPSTONE PROJECT PAPER AND PROTOTYPE
3
Executive Summary
As Erickson (1950) pointed out in his theory of development, adolescence is when youth
begin to form their identity by asserting their independence and exploring the world around
them. The transition between childhood and adulthood involves various psychical, biological,
social, and psychological changes that significantly impact a youth’s development.
Technological advances in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have provided a greater
understanding of adolescent cognition and brain development. These advances have shown that
the pruning of the brain continues well into adulthood and that social interactions shape
neurological connections affecting cognition, decision making, inhibitory control, memory, and
processing speed that impact behavior (Blakemore, 2011; Evans-Chase, 2014; Thompson, 2014).
Moreover, youth have to navigate hormonal changes that heighten sensitivity to
emotions, impulsivity, and aggression, which can lead to delinquency and anti-social behaviors
(Evans-Chase, 2014; Najman et al., 2009; Quas, Castro, Bryce, & Granger, 2018). Increased risk
behaviors in adolescence adversely impact their future economic independence, increases their
morbidity rates, and contributes to a more than 200% increase in preventable deaths (CDC, n.d.;
Casey, 2015; Paus et al., 2008; Compas, 1995; Hawkins et al., 2015; Miniño, 2010; United
Nations, 2015; WHO, 2018). Approximately 70% of adolescent deaths are caused by unintended
injury, homicide, and suicide (Kann et al., 2014; Curtin et al., 2018).
Racial and socioeconomic inequalities place youth of color at higher risk of delinquency,
incarceration, and recidivism, which further reduce their future economic independence, and
increase morbidity and mortality rates (Hawkins et al., 2015; CDC, 2013; Development Services
Group [DSG], 2014; Piquero, 2008). Black youth are approximately 35 percent more likely to
die than white youth and fifteen times more likely to die as a result of homicide. Moreover,
CAPSTONE PROJECT PAPER AND PROTOTYPE
4
youth of color are five times more likely to be arrested and processed through the juvenile justice
system than their white counterparts (Miniño, 2010; CDC, 2019; DSG, 2014; Piquero, 2008).
These disparities stem from implicit biases and systemic racism. The disparate treatment of
communities of color creates conditions that lead to violence, crime, and the maltreatment of
children, ultimately creating a direct path into the juvenile justice system. The link between child
maltreatment and juvenile delinquency is well recognized (Petro, 2006). It is estimated that
youth who experience maltreatment are nearly twice as likely to engage in delinquent behavior
(Ryan & Testa, 2005). Furthermore, a study conducted in Los Angeles County showed that more
than 80% of the youth on Probation were referred to Child Protective Services at some point in
time (McCroskey, Herz, & Putnam, 2017). The juvenile justice system falls short of delivering
meaningful rehabilitation and does not meet the needs of the youth in its care, leading to poor
prosocial development, higher morbidity, and inferior life outcomes (Journal of Adolescent
Health, 2016).
Despite recent efforts to reform the juvenile justice system, inequalities persist. Probation
plays a significant role within the juvenile justice system and in perpetuating the problem.
Inadequate and outdated supervision practices, along with institutional deficits, contribute to
high incarceration and recidivism rates. The Los Angeles (L.A.) County Probation Department is
one of the jurisdictions that has implemented vast reforms within its juvenile services over the
past fifteen years; however, youth within its care continue to show poor outcomes (Herz et al.,
2015).
This paper will detail a proposed solution to the problem. This pilot program seeks to
change current youth supervision practices, realign resources, and improve service delivery to
youth impacted by the juvenile justice system. The program will be a youth-centered, strength-
CAPSTONE PROJECT PAPER AND PROTOTYPE
5
based partnership approach focused on improving continuity of care through staff training in
evidence-based practices, reducing caseload sizes, making probation officers mobile, and
limiting the number of probation officers assigned to a youth’s case. The program is expected to
produce more robust relationships between the youth and the probation officer and improve
client satisfaction.
By focusing on improving outcomes for youth involved in the juvenile justice system, the
program will address the disparate treatment of communities of color and improve the overall
health outcomes of youth of color and their families. A reduction in length of time on probation,
technical violations, youth incarceration, and recidivism will indicate the program’s success. The
program’s success will help inform how youth involved in the juvenile justice system are cared
for and treated.
Conceptual Framework
Statement of the Problem
Origins. The juvenile justice system (JJS) was created in 1899, when the first juvenile
Court was established in Cook County, Illinois, USA (Tanenhaus, 2016). The JJS is comprised
of various entities. Law enforcement agencies are the gatekeepers and point of entry for the
majority of youth. Once in the door, other entities such as the county prosecution office, the
county juvenile delinquency court, local probation departments, and community-based service
providers become involved (OJJDP, 2018) (Attachment A). A youth’s journey through the
system can vary state to state and county to county.
The juvenile justice system was born out of the belief that youth are fundamentally
different from adults and should receive treatment outside of the adult criminal justice system
(Tanenhous, 2016). Early advocates such as Jane Adams and Judge Julian Mack believed that
CAPSTONE PROJECT PAPER AND PROTOTYPE
6
youth were capable of change and should receive compassion and empathy (Mack, 1909). This
created informal juvenile court proceedings, with the Judge and youth advocates collaborating to
determine the appropriate course of action for each individual youth entering the system. As
juvenile courts began to expand throughout the country, questions of due process arose and
prompted the federal government to intervene through a series of Supreme Court decisions that
formalized juvenile court proceedings (Mears et al., 2010; ABA, 2016).
By the mid 1900’s, the response towards juvenile delinquency began to change. Youth
were no longer being described as vulnerable kids in need of care and empathy; instead, they
were labeled incorrigible, feebleminded, and oppositional (Chavez-Garcia, 2016). Some attribute
the shift in attitudes to the changing demographics and diversification of the inner cities. Pickett
and Chiricos (2012) explained that the harsher treatment of minority youth resulted from racially
motivated beliefs that they were unworthy of rehabilitation nor capable of change. They were
viewed as equally culpable to adults and deserving of equal punishment under the law.
Punishment and retributive justice have long been a part of the U.S. justice system,
despite existing research suggesting that victims of crime themselves prefer restorative justice
models (Gal, 2011; Wenzel et al., 2010; Strang & Sherman, 2003). The consensus was that
victims needed justice and sought vengeance, leading public officials to push the retribution
narrative even when victims themselves were not looking for reprisal (Albrecht, 2011; Gal,
2011). This “eye for an eye” attitude, along with fears about the rise of “super-predators,”
supported the demonization and marginalization of youth of color and drove them deeper into the
juvenile justice and adult criminal justice systems (Bertram and Michels, October 30, 2019).
Disproportionate minority contact (DMC). Negative attitudes towards youthful
offenders motivated “tough on crime” approaches and created punitive policies and practices that
CAPSTONE PROJECT PAPER AND PROTOTYPE
7
contributed to the disproportionate representation of youth of color in the juvenile justice system
(Becker, 2014; Development Services Group, 2014; Mears, 2010). The period between 1960 and
1990, which encompassed the “crack epidemic,” saw a three-quarter increase in crime, including
serious crimes involving youth (UCRS, “n.d.”; Snyder, 2002). This fueled fears of “super-
predators” and calls of “adult time for adult crime” (Abrams, 2013; Becker, 2014). This surge in
crime helped shaped transfer laws that allowed youth as young as ten years of age to be
transferred and tried in adult criminal court. Many states had no age restriction specified for the
transfer of youthful offenders to adult court (Griffin, 2011).
California set the standard for “tough on crime” laws by passing laws such as Proposition
21, which lowered eligibility for transfer to adult court from 16 to 14, expanded three-strikes
laws, and lengthened sentencing for certain crimes (Becker, 2014). California also developed
initiatives such as the Street Terrorism and Prevention Act (STEP), Racketeer Influenced and
Corruption Organization Act (RICO), and civil gang injunctions (CGIs) that allowed local law
enforcement to profile youth based on how they dressed, who they associate with, and where
they congregated (Myers, 2009). For example, youth wearing specific colors or clothing styles
were scrutinized and often registered as gang-involved by law enforcement. Such practices
suppressed typical adolescent behaviors and drove disproportionate contact (Barvosa, 2014).
Some argued that disproportionate minority contact (DMC) is caused by differential
treatment of youth of color in the juvenile justice system (Development Services Group, 2014;
Piquero, 2008). This theory suggests that the disparate treatment of minority youth begins at the
point of entry (arrest). A national study conducted by Pierson et al. (2017) showing that Blacks
and Latinos are twice as likely than Whites to be stopped, searched, ticketed, and arrested by law
enforcement appears to support this assertion. Disparate treatment of minority youth continues as
CAPSTONE PROJECT PAPER AND PROTOTYPE
8
they are processed through the JJS. They receive harsher treatment and sentencing, including
being tried as adults more frequently than their white counterparts. Hockenberry (2019) pointed
out that youth of color were three to four times more likely to be ordered residential treatment,
while white youth were more likely to be ordered home on probation. They are also reported to
be up to six times more likely to be confined than white youth (Sickmund et al., 2011; Sawyer,
2018; Nunn, 2002; Griffin et al., 2011).
Nonetheless, others point to differential involvement as the cause of DMC. This theory
suggests that youth of color are involved in more crime and therefore have broader
representation in the juvenile justice system (DSG, 2014; Piquero, 2008), which appears to be
supported by national crime statistics. In 2016, White youth accounted for approximately 62
percent of crime while comprising 51 percent of the youth population. Meanwhile, black youth
accounted for nearly 35 percent of juvenile offenses while comprising only 14 percent of the
population. Latino youth offended at comparable rates to their total population (25 percent) (FBI,
2016; KIDS COUNT, 2017).
Some would argue that crime statistics themselves do not tell the entire story and raise
the question of what is driving differential involvement. What causes youth of color to
disproportionately engage in delinquency and crime? Some research suggests that the problem of
DMC is associated with the larger issue of socioeconomic and racial inequality, concluding that
poverty and income inequality significantly impact violent crime and property crime rates (Hsieh
& Pugh, 1993; Ackerman, 1998). Hannon and Defina (2005) point out that both black and white
communities showed a similar reduction in violent crime when controlling for poverty.
Youth of color are more likely to come from disenfranchised communities deprived of
educational, employment, health, and other vital resources that impact their quality of life. This
CAPSTONE PROJECT PAPER AND PROTOTYPE
9
scarcity contributes to violence, crime, abuse, neglect, substance abuse, mental illness, household
dysfunction, parental separations, divorce, and incarceration (Dowd, 2011). These hardships
have been categorized as Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) and linked to poverty, which
creates disparities between people in affluent communities and those in poor neighborhoods
(Felitti et al., 1998). Research shows that ACEs hinder a child’s ability to function in the home,
school, in the community, and often lead to delinquency (Perez, Jennings, & Baglivio, 2018;
Evans-Chase, 2014). Various studies have shown that nearly 95% of youth in the juvenile justice
system have experienced multiple ACEs, including severe poverty, violence, neglect, and abuse
(Baglivio et al., 2014; Cannon et al., 2016).
Social Significance
Social norms. In the United States, the inequalities discussed above are held in place by
American exceptionalism and implicit biases, which are routed in the belief that everyone has an
equal opportunity to achieve the “American Dream.” The narrative that America is the land of
opportunity, and those who work hard enough will be rewarded with a better life, has been
passed down for generations. Those incapable of lifting themselves from their bootstraps are
described as not working hard enough and lacking self-motivation (The Economist, 2006;
Putman, 2017). This implies that those who live in poverty are there by choice or lack of effort.
This belief is reinforced by anecdotal examples of people who rose out of poverty by
overcoming the odds. Statements such as, “They did it, so can you” or “I did it, so can you,”
become part of public discourse. Minorities that climb the social ladder become the exception
and are referenced as examples of a thriving “American Dream.” In contrast, other individuals
from these same communities who are unable to reach the same success are viewed as less
capable (Gray, 1989). The American Dream has been referred to as a myth that works because
CAPSTONE PROJECT PAPER AND PROTOTYPE
10
people want to believe in fairness and that their hard work will pay off, as opposed to the idea
that their success is reliant on a system that favors some over others (Putman, 2017).
American idealism places the sole responsibility on self. The philosophy of personal
responsibility has been described as political rhetoric used to avoid social responsibility and
place blame on the “last chooser” (Greenfield, 2011). Politicians and industry have failed to
address the negative impacts that neo-liberal policies such as fiscal austerity, privatization, and
market liberalization have had on minorities' ability to access employment, education, housing,
healthcare, etc. These policies have led to many inequalities and contributed to severe poverty,
homelessness, mental health problems, substance dependence issues, and incarceration, giving
way to the prison-industrial complex (Hartnett, 2008).
The rhetoric of personal responsibility becomes a natural explanation for those who either
consciously or unconsciously reject the idea that systemic inequalities exist, and that they have
contributed to the systematic oppression and criminalization of normal adolescent behavior
through the creation of punitive policies and practices that breed criminal behavior (Lopez-
Aguado, 2016). For example, schools in disadvantaged neighborhoods are often overburdened,
underfunded, and over-policed. These conditions have produced zero-tolerance policies that
disproportionately punish youth of color. Studies have shown that youth of color who attended
schools in impoverished communities were more likely to be suspended and arrested for typical
adolescent behavior than white students in more affluent neighborhoods. These schools utilized
fewer restorative justice approaches, such as mediation and restitution, to resolve conflicts
(Hirschfield, 2018; Mallett, 2015)
Placing the onus solely on the individual dismisses the lack of opportunities and obstacles
presented by poverty, leaving individuals in disadvantaged communities with feelings of
CAPSTONE PROJECT PAPER AND PROTOTYPE
11
hopelessness and a deep-seated distrust of the system (Feinstein, 2015). Many families living in
poverty believe social inequalities will always exist and that things will never change. Without
the needed resources or energy to confront injustices, they focus on meeting their immediate
needs for survival. Youth begin to internalize beliefs that they are to blame for their situation and
that they are not worthy of a better life. These conditions can lead to self-sabotaging behaviors,
fueling the myth that these youths are inherently damaged and not worth saving. (Harris,
Duncan, & Boisjoly, 2002).
Greenwald and Kreiger (2006) defined implicit bias as unconscious beliefs and attitudes
held about certain groups of people, shaped by previous experiences. They explain that our
experiences are shaped by thousands of bits of information the brain processes every second,
with only a small fraction of that information being captured by the conscious brain. This
suggests that the unconscious mind steers many of our beliefs and actions. From this viewpoint,
it is reasonable to conclude that without conscious reflection on the assumptions that drive
behavior, problematic stereotypes will persist. These unconscious biases held towards youth of
color drive punitive policies and practices in the juvenile justice system (Gove, 2011; DSG,
2014).
The configuration of these stories, labels, laws, attitudes, and implicit biases becomes
part of the social fabric and norms circulating the problem. Social norms are defined as unwritten
rules that dictate how people behave in social settings. People adhere to these norms based on
their beliefs of how others expect them to act and the potential consequences or sanctions they
will receive for violating these norms. These norms encourage some behaviors and discourage
others. Over time, these norms become invincible forces that control people’s behavior and
perpetuate problem behaviors such as discrimination and racism (Bicchieri, 2017).
CAPSTONE PROJECT PAPER AND PROTOTYPE
12
Media influence. The media plays a unique role in underpinning social norms and
embedding them into the culture. The public is often exposed to numerous images and messages
of delinquent and criminal behavior by minority youth through news and entertainment media.
Youth of color are often depicted as rebellious “thugs” and violent criminals. These broadcasted
judgments drive and cement unfavorable attitudes toward minority youth, yielding
discriminatory practices (Greenwald and Krieger, 2006).
According to Smith, Choueiti, and Piepert (2016), the media remains a predominantly
“white man” business, with women and minorities making up only 10 percent of the industry. As
the dominant group, white men control the narratives that influence social norms. Lopez-Aguado
(2016), argued that racialized beliefs of youth of color by the dominant white culture have been
depicted throughout the media and have influenced public opinions that persist. Recent coverage
of adolescent gun violence serves as an example of the slanted media reporting.
School shootings in minority communities have been occurring for decades; however,
there has been little to no media coverage of these incidents (Maxwell, 2018; Mitchell &
Bromfield, 2019). As Parham-Payne (2014) explains, adolescent gun violence became part of the
national discussion when school shootings began impacting predominantly white communities.
Park et al. (2012) found that youth of color are rarely shown as victims of crime, yet they are
frequently reported as the perpetrators of crime. Furthermore, media coverage of gun violence in
communities of color often focuses on race and immorality. In contrast, gun violence in white
communities ignore the subject of race and focus on underlying issues, such as gun violence,
mental health, and school safety (Kaste, 2018; Nicodemo & Petronio, 2018). This skewed media
coverage shapes the narrative of white youth as victims in need of protection and social action,
while youth of color are stereotyped as inherently criminal and causing their own demise.
CAPSTONE PROJECT PAPER AND PROTOTYPE
13
Literature and Practice Review of the Problem
Although biased beliefs and attitudes towards youthful offenders of color persist, many
reforms have taken place within the juvenile justice system (JJS) since the turn of the century.
Most of these reforms began as a result of litigation arising from reports of maltreatment of
youth within juvenile facilities (Mendel, 2011). The mounting cost of youth incarceration and
high recidivism rates also heightened calls for reform. In some states, recidivism rates rose as
high as 80 percent (Griffin, 2011; Basto-Pereira et al., 2016; Mandel 2011). Several studies show
that youth who go deeper into the juvenile justice system recidivate more frequently and sooner
than kids treated with less restrictive options.
With the cost of youth incarceration soaring, community leaders, child advocates,
juvenile justice officials, policymakers, and other stakeholders began to look towards more
developmentally appropriate, cost-effective, and evidence-based approaches (Simmonds, 2019;
CDRC, 2017; Herz et al., 2015; Mendel, 2011). The push for comprehensive reform was
supported and guided by the advances in neuroscience and adolescent brain development.
This shift signaled a return to the core principles of the JJS, that youth were fundamentally
different from adults.
The U.S. Supreme Court validated this founding principle in a 2012 decision. Citing
brain science, the court declared that children were indeed different from adults and that punitive
policies such as life without the possibility of parole, constituted a violation of their Eighth
Amendment rights prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment (Tanenhaus, 2016). Counties across
the country began to follow the federal government's lead by implementing best practices that
minimize youth entrance and reduced youth confinement.
CAPSTONE PROJECT PAPER AND PROTOTYPE
14
The shift in attitudes coincided a drastic drop in crime rates. Violent crime and property
crime dropped more than 50 percent since the mid 1990’s (Gramlich, July 4, 2020). This
provided reformers with a window of opportunity to improve existing practices and promote
alternatives to youth involvement in the JJS. This included an emphasis on diverting youth away
from the JJS. Wilson and Hoge (2013), reported that youth who were processed through the
traditional JJS were on average, 10 percent more likely to recidivate than youth who were
diverted to community alternatives. The combination of crime reduction and the implementation
of diversion programs contributed to a significant reduction in the number of youths entering the
juvenile justice system (Gramlich, January 3, 2019; Wilson & Hoge, 2013).
In Los Angeles County, reforms are on-going. In 2017, the Board of Supervisors passed a
measure expanding youth diversion at the point of arrest and vowed a yearly investment of $14
million to this new initiative (Countywide Criminal Justice Coordination Committee [CCJCC],
2017). This is an example of how collaboration between community organizations, local law
enforcement, and government agencies is being utilized to address youth incarceration and
recidivism. Sustained diversion of lower risk/needs youth will continue to reduce the number of
kids entering the JJS. This provides an opportunity to reallocated resources within the JJS and
provide more intensive and effective interventions to the highest risk/needs youth entering the
system.
Nevertheless, the United States continues to lead the way in youth incarceration. On any
given day, approximately 50,000 youth are detained across the country (Sawyer, 2018). Every
year, more than 800,000 youth are referred to Delinquency Court. Ninety-five percent of these
cases are referred for non-violent crimes (Hockenberry & Puzzanchera, 2018; Hockenberry &
Puzzanchera, 2019). In several states, the cost of youth incarceration can exceed $300,000 per
CAPSTONE PROJECT PAPER AND PROTOTYPE
15
year for one youth (i.e., California and New York) (Cohen & Pfeifer, 2008; Simmonds, 2019;
CDRC, 2017; Petteruti, Schindler, & Ziedenberg, 2014). The majority of youth who enter the
juvenile justice system will end up on probation for prolonged periods and recidivate more than
half of the time (Herz et al., 2015; CDRC, 2017; Mendel, 2011).
Despite vast reforms to the juvenile justice system over the past 20 years, community
supervision practices remain mostly unchanged. Current surveillance and compliance models of
supervision go against what is known about youth development and fall short of meeting the
complex needs of the youth entering the JJS. The overwhelming majority of youth who enter the
JJS have experienced some form of trauma, and approximately 75 percent have a diagnosed
mental health condition (Cannon et al., 2016; Baglivio et al., 2014; Teplin et al., 2013).
As brain science indicates, trauma harms adolescent brain development, often leading to
chemical imbalances that impact homeostasis, further impairing their decision-making ability
and socio-emotional development (Evans-Chase, 2014; De Bellis & Zisk, 2014). Probation
officers lacking proper training and understanding of youth development and the impacts of
trauma on behavior resort to surveillance and punishment to gain compliance. Youth who display
defiance or are not compliant with court conditions of probation often receive technical
violations that can result in an escalation of sanctions, including detention (Hockenberry and
Puzzanchera, 2018).
Moreover, Probation Officers are often overwhelmed with high caseload sizes, which in
some instances are as high as 90 to one (Herz & Chan, 2017). This makes it virtually impossible
for Probation Officers to invest the time needed to gain a better understanding of the underlying
needs of youth and foster meaningful relationships that will impact positive behavior change.
Most youth on probation are only required to see a Probation Officer at least one-time per month.
CAPSTONE PROJECT PAPER AND PROTOTYPE
16
These visits are often an impersonal check-in, meant to satisfy minimum requirements. This
contributes to prolonged length of stays within the JJS. Studies show that youth stay on probation
for more than two years on average, which decreases the likelihood of high school completion
and increases the risk of adult incarceration (Aalsma, et al., 2016; Bennett et al., 2017; Jacobson
et al., 2017; Aizer and Doyle, 2013). Improving the outcomes for youth involved in the JJS will
not only save taxpayers millions of dollars, it will also improve the lives of these youth, their
families, and their communities.
Logic Model (Attachment B)
The proposed innovation seeks to support existing reform efforts in L.A. County by
improving continuity and quality of care provided to moderate and high risk/needs youth on
probation. The innovation is anchored in the belief that stronger provider-client relationships
produce better outcomes. Studies show that having a consistent and meaningful relationship with
a trusted adult can serve as a protective factor and lead to better outcomes for youth (Cohen,
2017).
Emphasis on the relationship between the youth and their probation officer must begin
when a youth is referred to delinquency court. Currently, the importance of the relationship is
stressed when youth are deep into the juvenile justice system. For example, recent reforms have
focused on reducing youth to staff ratios in the institutions to improve the quality of care. While
these are important and necessary reforms, the same, if not greater, attention should be given to
building stronger relationships with youth upon entering the JJS.
Although there is no available data showing the average number of probation officers a
youth will have during their probation order, it is not uncommon for a youth to experience
multiple changes to their probation officer, resulting from staff turnover, change of residence,
CAPSTONE PROJECT PAPER AND PROTOTYPE
17
changes in school, out of home placement, and specialized needs (Herz, 2017). Changes in
probation officers are disruptive to the youth’s continuity of care and hinder youth from forming
a healthy, meaningful relationship with their probation officer. To improve the youth-probation
officer relationship, the practice of transferring cases through multiple supervision units and
probation officers must change.
The proposed pilot program will provide intensive services to moderate and high-
risk/needs youth by permanently assigning Master level case managers to a youth at the point of
entry (arrest referral). Being arrested can be a difficult and sometimes traumatic event that can
involve the immediate removal from the community. Depending on the seriousness of the crime,
some youth will be housed at a juvenile hall until they can see a judge, usually within frothy-
eight hours. After being arrested and cited, youth and their families go through a series of court
hearings: Detention, Arraignment, Adjudication, and Disposition. These can all happen within a
month or go on for months, depending on the complexity of the case. Between the arrest and the
disposition hearing, youth and the caregivers are required to meet with a Probation Investigator,
who will assess the circumstances of the case and complete a report to the Court that includes a
recommended course of action (OJJDP, 2018).
The journey through the juvenile justice system (JJS) can be very intimidating,
frustrating, and confusing for a young person and their caregivers. As a result, some youth may
fail to appear (FTA) in Court, leading to the issuance of bench warrant and subsequent detention.
This standard practice of detaining youth for FTA has not been shown to deter future FTAs, but
this is one of the limited tools at the Court's disposal to gain compliance (Ogle and Turanovic,
2019).
CAPSTONE PROJECT PAPER AND PROTOTYPE
18
Assigning a highly skilled and trained case manager at the point of referral is expected to
alleviate some of the anxiety and uncertainty associated with the arrest and pending court
hearings. These case managers will have built rapport with the youth and their families, allowing
them to rely on their relationships to encourage court appearances and reduce incidents of failure
to appear (FTA). Furthermore, these case managers can advocate for youth to remain in the
community if they do not pose a safety risk.
Although the Probation Officer (case manager) will not be able to answer any legal
questions or discuss the allegations made against the youth, the case manager can provide
supportive services to address any underlying needs or concerns of the youth and the family.
When charges are sustained and a formal or informal Probation order is made, the assigned case
manager will stay on the case, help develop a case plan and utilize proven interventions to assist
with successful completion of case plan goals and court order. This will allow for continuity of
care and the investment of time towards building the youth-provider relationship.
Staff will be trained in proven methods such as positive youth development, trauma-
informed care, and motivational interviewing. They will also receive regular training in implicit
bias, social interactions, and adolescent brain development. Positive Youth Development (PYD)
has been shown to facilitate high-quality social relationships that contribute to improved youth
academic performance and an overall positive outlook on their futures (Lerner et al., 2014). The
PYD model will be utilized to facilitate a mutually influential, informal mentoring relationships
to promote intrinsic motivation. Trauma-informed training will contribute to the humanization of
youth and assist officers with taking a compassionate approach toward positive behavior change.
Motivational interview will help to build intrinsic motivation and facilitate positive youth
behavior change.
CAPSTONE PROJECT PAPER AND PROTOTYPE
19
Staff training is expected to raise staff knowledgebase by 25 percent, as measured by pre-
and post-test. Greater knowledge and understanding on these subjects will assist staff with
addressing the youth’s needs by implementing developmentally appropriate responses to a
youth’s harmful behaviors (Blakemore, 2011; Evans-Chase, 2014; Thompson, 2014). The
training will provide officers with necessary skills such as counter-stereotyping, empathy, and
individuation, humanizing individuals, and breaking through existing biases (Spencer,
Charbonneau, & Glaser, 2016). Training will encourage officers to invest time and take
ownership of their role in the relationship.
Building strong and meaningful relationships requires time. The time probation officers
spend with youth depends on their caseload sizes. Smaller caseload sizes increase the time staff
can invest in each youth and establish healthier and more meaningful relationships. Therefore,
caseload sizes will be drastically reduced and capped at twelve. This is aligned with national
standards when providing intensive case management services to moderate and high risk/needs
youth (Mandel 2018; Burrell, 2006). The 12 to one, youth to staff ratio, appears feasible given
that the number of youth supervised by L.A. County Probation staff dropped 50 percent between
2015 and 2018, while the number of staff remains relatively stable (Annual Report, 2019).
Lower ratios will allow for casework sessions to increase from the existing minimum of one-time
per month to weekly meetings, depending on their risk/needs assessment scores. Reducing
caseload sizes will allow for a more significant investment of time dedicated to working and
building a strong partnership between the youth and their case manager.
Casework sessions will be conducted face-to-face in the community and will focus
primarily on case plan goals, building on youth strengths, and addressing their underlying needs.
As Bennett et al. (2017) proposed, Probation Officers (case managers) should be mobilized to
CAPSTONE PROJECT PAPER AND PROTOTYPE
20
allow for the engagement of youth and their families in their natural environments. Each family
will have unique needs, and staff must be able to accommodate them by traveling throughout the
County at various times of the day, including evenings. Work schedules may include ten-hour
days four-times per week or other alternative work schedules as needed. Staff will be provided
with a county vehicle or mileage compensation for their travels. They will also receive county
laptops for completing notes and other work-related tasks and a county cell phone for improved
communication.
Staff will have a centralized office within their assigned Service Planning Areas (SPA) in
the County; however, they will spend most of their time with families in the community (i.e.,
home, school, CBO, etc.). When a youth moves out of the service area, the case manager will
remain on the case and provide services wherever the family resides within the County.
Although youth may begin their probation order in one region of the County, they may move,
change school, or be placed out of home in different areas of the County. Mobilizing staff will
allow them to spend more time in the communities of their clients. This will help move the
Department away from utilizing local area offices for impersonal visits in sterile environments
that placed the burden of “reporting” on the youth and their family (Bennett et al., 2017).
Assigning one highly skilled and trained permanent case manager to a youth, reducing
caseload sizes, and providing flexible work schedules will drastically reduce disruptions in
services, foster healthy relationships, and improve the quality of care and the youth’s experience.
It has been reported that integration of care and coordination of services improved how the client
experienced care (Tobon, Reid, and Goffin, 2014). Furthermore, reduced caseload sizes
combined with evidence-based practices (EBP) and intensive supervision have been shown to
decreased recidivism rates as much as 25 percent (Jalbert, 2010).
CAPSTONE PROJECT PAPER AND PROTOTYPE
21
Problems of Practice and Innovation Solutions
Evidence and Current Context for Proposed Innovation
Over the past 20 years, juvenile justice reforms have taken place at an incremental pace.
The recent introduction of the COVID-19 pandemic and the social unrest resulting from police
brutality have magnified demands for law enforcement reform and calls for more significant
change to the juvenile justice system (JJS). Efforts to contain the pandemic through social
distancing have caused state and local governments to rethink incarceration and to reassess who
truly poses a risk to the community. As a result, hundreds of California youth have been released
back to their communities (Miller, March 17, 2020). Furthermore, calls for probation to move
away from compliance and surveillance supervision practices to an approach more aligned with
the current understanding of youth development have gained momentum (theavtimes.com, May
26, 2020; Mendel, 2018). The current environment strengthens the case for the proposed
innovation of a strength-based and community-based alternative supervision program.
Overall, the JJS is moving away from deficit models focused on reducing problem
behaviors towards strength-based models focusing on positive attributes and strengths of youth
and their communities (Barton & Butts, 2008). Positive Youth Development (PYD) is one of the
frameworks being utilized to build youth resiliency by developing soft skills and building
protective factors (Travis & Leech, 2014). The PYD framework has been linked to high-quality
social relationships between youth and adults that contribute to improved youth academic
performance and an overall positive outlook on their futures (Lerner et al., 2014).
Nonetheless, recent juvenile justice reform efforts have failed to focus on the probation
officer-youth relationship and positive youth development. Casey (2015) pointed out that studies
of the adolescent brain showed that youth had adverse reactions to perceived threats and
CAPSTONE PROJECT PAPER AND PROTOTYPE
22
heightened sensitivity to incentives. The anticipation of favorable outcomes helped youth
regulate their impulses and facilitated performance that optimize their results. This highlights the
importance of moving away from deficit-based models and towards strength-based methods.
Healthy and meaningful relationships with trusted adults are known to assist with the shaping of
neurological connections that protect against stressful events and help obtain higher-level
executive function skills. Youth are better able to retain and utilizing new information, adjust to
new situations, and improve impulse control (Cohen, 2017).
Furthermore, literature across various human service disciplines supports the association
between stronger provider-client relationships and improved outcomes (Duppong Hurley et al.,
2017; Shin, 2011; Marsh, 2012; Gochyyev & Skeem, 2019; Kennealy et al., 2012). This positive
correlation has also been shown in the relationship between youth and their probation officers.
One study showed that a firm, fair, and caring dual relationships between youth and their
probation officers produce positive outcomes, while another study found that high-quality dual
relationship between the probation officer and the probationer protects against re-arrests
(Gochyyev and Skeem, 2019; Kennealy et al., 2012). Similarly, a related study reported that
high-quality mentor and mentee relationships, as measured by the Mentor–Youth Alliance Scale
(MYAS), facilitated improved youth competency in the domains of family, adult relationships,
school, and life skills (Zand et al., 2009). Youth involved in the JJS often lack close connections
with adults, placing probation officers in a unique position to fill this void if provided with the
necessary tools and resources.
As a result of the inconsistent gathering of data, recidivism rates are not readily available;
however, a few studies have shown that recidivism rates remain between 50 and 80 percent
(CDCR, 2017; Washburn, 2017; Herz; 2017). A study conducted by Herz (2017) showed that
CAPSTONE PROJECT PAPER AND PROTOTYPE
23
recidivism rates amongst L.A. County Probation youth were higher than 50 percent, suggesting
that the Department's current juvenile supervision strategies are ineffective and need
improvement. A governance study of the L.A. County Probation Department conducted in 2017
indicated that juvenile services be streamlined to conserve resources and facilitate effective
service delivery (Bennett et al., 2017).
Comparative Market Analysis
Juvenile justice systems across the country are implementing on-going reforms. They are
attempting to reduce youth incarceration and recidivism by incorporating new knowledge of
youth development and cultural competence into their models. One example is the opportunity-
based probation program out of Pierce County, Washington, that has implemented a new
innovative strategy that focuses on promoting positive behavior change for youth under
community supervision. Youth in the program accumulate points through case plan goal
completion that can later be used towards prizes that rise in value, including shortening the
length of probation (Mandel, 2018). When probation conditions are violated, or goals are not
met, the youth’s privileges are shelved, and they are engaged in problem-solving activities rather
than the common practice of imposing sanctions. This approach utilizes the current
understanding of how a youth’s anticipation of rewards facilitates performance on a task and
helps regulate impulses to optimize outcomes (Casey, 2015).
The Missouri Model is another program that has gained notoriety across the country for
its reforms of institutional practices. Mendel (2010) explains that this model reformed youth
confinement by providing intensive services to high risk/needs youth in a small group setting
located near their homes. They focused on strengthening relationships between staff and the
youth and providing secure environments that promote psychological and emotional well-being
CAPSTONE PROJECT PAPER AND PROTOTYPE
24
through group treatment and extensive individual attention. Other components emphasize
education and communication skills geared towards improving success in the community.
Families were incorporated into the treatment process and in transition planning upon entry. The
model has produced recidivism rates as low as 8 percent (Mendel, 2010).
Los Angeles County Probation. Since 2008, the Los Angeles (L.A.) County Probation
Department has implemented several reforms within its residential treatment facilities, including
a Behavior Management Program (BMP) that utilizes merit-based incentives to encourage
positive behavior and goal achievement. They employed Multi-Disciplinary Team (MDT)
meetings that establish treatment goals upon entrance to a residential facility, monitor progress,
and establish a transition plan. Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT) has also been implemented
as one of the evidence-based practices utilized to influence positive behavior change (Korman, &
Dierkhising, 2016).
More recently, the Department adopted the Missouri model for its state-of-the-art
residential treatment facility in Malibu, California, which opened in 2017. The “L.A. Model,” as
it is being called, utilizes a small group, trauma-informed approach to help youth build coping
and improve their outcomes. The L.A. Model has been operating for over two years, but data on
youth recidivism has not been made available. The most recent available data shows that nearly
50 percent of the youth released from camp acquire new sustained charges within 18 months of
release (Herz et al., 2015; Herz, 2017).
The Department has attempted to provide continuity of care to incarcerated youth by
bridging the gap with specialized units that engage youth before they are released from
residential treatment facilities, also known as reentry services. The concept of continuity of care
is a practice adopted from the health care field, which emphasizes on-going quality care by
CAPSTONE PROJECT PAPER AND PROTOTYPE
25
nurturing long-term patient-physician partnership (AAFP, July 6, 2019). The Camp Community
Transition Program (CCTP) is the most common specialized unit youth are assigned to when
they transition back to the community. Officers in this unit initiate services before the youth’s
release and provide an intensive supervision transition plan that ensures school enrollment and
comprehensive service referrals to community-based organizations. This unit has been in
existence for over ten years and available data on recidivism rates for incarcerated youth in L.A.
County suggests that it has been ineffective (Herz et al., 2015).
The ineffectiveness of reentry programs is in part due to youth leaving a structured
environment and returning to the unstable setting that presents many of the same challenges that
led to their detention. Youth faced with distress in their homes and communities are likely to
revert to the coping and survival skills that worked for them in the past, often leading to technical
violations and reoffending (Herz et al., 2015). Newly assigned staff do not have adequate time to
build rapport and may not have the necessary information or tools to address the underlying
needs, restricting their ability to implement appropriate interventions.
L.A. County Probation Department is the largest of its kind. It has over 6,000 staff and
nearly 8,000 youth under its care. The current structure and fractured nature of existing services
delivery make it more likely that youth and their families will pass through the system without
their underlying needs being met. For example, a youth who is ordered home on probation and
subsequently incurs a new arrest or violation that removes them from their home may be
assigned to three or more different probation officers by the time they complete their probation
order. This disrupts a youth’s continuity and is not conducive to building meaningful
relationships between the youth and the probation staff.
CAPSTONE PROJECT PAPER AND PROTOTYPE
26
The implementation of evidence-based practices is a step in the right direction, but more
can and should be done to improve system-involved youth outcomes. Between 2006 and 2018,
the Los Angeles County Probation Department had a 71 percent decrease in youth caseloads
(Annual Report, 2019). With staffing remaining at comparatively stable levels, an opportunity
exists to restructure juvenile supervision services and move away from status quo practices that
contribute to poor outcomes.
Proposed Innovation and its Effect on the Grand Challenge
Although improving the probation officer-youth relationships, reducing caseload sizes,
and providing staff training in evidence-based practices are not new ideas in themselves,
combining these different strategies in service of moderate to high-risk/needs youth is unique.
An examination of juvenile probation research did not produce a comparable program focusing
on improving the probation officer-youth relationship through the proposed program and practice
changes. Based on the literature review and field interviews conducted with former youth
involved in the system, community leaders, youth advocates, and professionals in the field, there
appears to be a need for improving continuity of care within the juvenile justice system,
specifically within L.A. County Probation. There remain questions as to whether such a large
department is capable of accomplishing such a significant shift. Nonetheless, there appears to be
an appetite for change within the Department and the County of Los Angeles.
It is anticipated that a substantial investing in youth involved in the JJS and the staff who
care for them, will result in more youth remaining in their homes, shortening their length of stay
within the system, and ultimately reducing recidivism. By decreasing risk factors that lead to
morbidity and mortality, the probation department will be helping youth live longer, healthier,
more productive lives. This will help subvert the norms holding the problem in place and
CAPSTONE PROJECT PAPER AND PROTOTYPE
27
contribute to a more just and equitable society. The expected success of the program will assist
with future dissemination throughout the Los Angeles County Probation Department. Scaling the
program department-wide will require that the existing structure of various supervising units be
consolidated and streamlined to provide an equal distribution of caseloads. Success in one of the
country's largest counties may be indicative of the program’s scalability throughout other
jurisdictions.
Project Structure and Methodology
Description of Capstone Deliverable/Artifact
Positive Youth Engagement (PYE) is a Capstone proposal that seeks to address the social
work grand challenge to ensure healthy development for all youth. The proposed pilot program
will address systemic gaps by improving continuity and quality of care provided to moderate to
high-needs/risk youth who enter the juvenile justice system (JJS). The program's main
components are assigning one highly skilled case manager, preferably Master’s level, to a
youth’s case at the point of entry (arrest referral) that will remain on the case until termination.
Reducing and capping caseload sizes at 12 youth to one staff. The caseworkers will receive
specialized training in proven interventions and will be mobilized to allow them to operate from
within the communities of the youth they serve.
Improved continuity and quality of care centered on youths’ needs is expected to limit
technical violations that lead to detention, reduce the length of time on probation, and ultimately
reduce recidivism. It is proposed that the Positive Youth Engagement (PYE) program be piloted
in the Los Angeles County Probation Department and under the auspices of the Los Angeles
County Board of Supervisors. The program will be delivered to the agency in the form of a
CAPSTONE PROJECT PAPER AND PROTOTYPE
28
manual (Attachment E) that provides the project's conceptual framework, purpose, and step-by-
step guidance on the implementation and roles of major players.
The innovation will operate on a three-tiered system. Youth with higher risk/needs scores
will receive the most intensive services in Tier I. Youth in this tier will receive weekly intense
casework sessions, with a minimum of four sessions per month. The sessions will include at least
one joint meeting with family/guardian and at least one meeting with a partner agency or
stakeholder (i.e. school, mental health, employer, CBO, etc.). Tier II will be for moderate
risk/needs youth. The intensity of services will drop, with two to three one-hour sessions per
month. One of the sessions will be conducted with the family/guardian or another stakeholder.
Tier III will be a voluntary six-month maintenance service provided to youth who graduate the
program but are still in need of continued support and guidance.
The depth of services will match the youth's risk/needs scores; as scores increase or
decrease, so will the intensity of services. For example, when a youth is removed from the home,
there is often a reduction in risk/needs scores as a result of them being placed in a secure
environment with supportive services on-site; therefore, these youth are likely to need less
intensive services from their assigned case manager.
Staffing. The pilot program will recruit eight full-time, Deputy Probation Officer, II
(case managers) and two Supervising Deputy Probation Officers (SDPO). Supervisors will
provide weekly guidance to the case managers, collaborate in the review of cases, and develop
strategies for addressing the needs of the youth and their families. It is highly recommended that
SDPO’s be licensed through the state Board of Behavioral Sciences. It is also highly
recommended that the case managers hold a master’s degree in the field of behavioral sciences.
Though a highly skilled, motivated, and trained individual would be capable of performing the
CAPSTONE PROJECT PAPER AND PROTOTYPE
29
duties of the position, the added years of study and practice are likely to increase the staff’s
effectiveness and fidelity to the model. The program will receive oversite by a Probation
Director, one Senior Administrative Assistant, and one Program Analyst.
All case managers will be required to complete the Department's mandatory training on
trauma-informed care and implicit bias. Upon assignment to the PYE program staff will receive
enhanced training in these areas and additional training on adolescent development, motivational
interviewing, Positive Youth Development (PYD), and integrated case plan development. Staff
will be fully trained within four weeks and will receive refresher training every 6-months. Case
managers will receive two cases per week until they reach their maximum of 12 cases.
Project Implementation Methods / Communication Strategies
The implementation of the proposed innovation will require a multifaceted approach
utilizing numerous distinct strategies as defined by the Expert Recommendation for
Implementing Change (ERIC) (Brownson et al., 2017). Using evaluative and iterative strategies
such as assessing readiness, adopting measurement tools, and monitoring data systems for
quality assurance will be vital to successful implementation. Developing close stakeholder
relationships by building a coalition of champions, researchers, and community leaders will
mitigate potential barriers within partner agencies and lend credibility to the program.
Engaging consumers (youth, caregivers, and staff) in the implementation process will
ensure that their needs are being met and that necessary adjustment are made. Consulting with
experts and educating stakeholders on the program model will validate the intervention and
increase implementation effectiveness. Using different financial strategies to secure diverse
revenue sources will assist with flexibility and adaptability that will support the implementation
CAPSTONE PROJECT PAPER AND PROTOTYPE
30
process. Dissemination of the intervention in a large government entity such as L.A. County
Probation will give good indication of the program’s scalability.
The implementation process will be directed by the Exploration Preparation
Implementation Sustainment (EPIS) framework (Attachment E), which has been proven
effective at facilitating the implementation of EBPs (Moullin et al., 2019; Becan et al., 2018).
The framework consists of four stages that assess the service system's inner and outer context
(Aarons et al., 2011). The proposed program will be pitched to probation administration by
September 2020 with a recommended implementation date of January 2021. The first six months
will be the pre-operation phase dedicated to securing funding, putting together the
implementation team, hiring trainers and researchers, and staff recruitment. From July 2021 to
June 2022, the pilot program will be implemented with the on-going evaluation of performance
measures.
Exploration. The EPIS framework's exploration phase is focused on raising awareness of
challenges to the implementation of best practices and improving service delivery to patients,
clients, or communities (Aarons et al., 2011). The exploration process for the proposed capstone
has been on-going and has included a literature review, field interviews with various
stakeholders, and a design lab. One of the existing barriers to service delivery for youth on
probation is the structure and sheer size of the Department, making it difficult to implement
structural changes needed to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the operation.
Nonetheless, recent outside pressure if forcing the Department to collaborate with other
stakeholders to identify new strategies for addressing deficits.
Preparation. The preparation phase will be a six-month process in which an
administrative team will be established, and the program’s infrastructure will be constructed. The
CAPSTONE PROJECT PAPER AND PROTOTYPE
31
executive team will utilize the current sociopolitical climate in its favor to lock in the funding
needed to launch the pilot program. The strategy of accessing new financings, such as
government and foundation grants, will allow for flexible implementation and adaptation. Also,
reallocating existing funding can assist with providing stability to the implementation process.
The administrative team will develop stakeholder interrelationships by building a
coalition with partner agencies (i.e., other county departments) and the community. Identifying
and securing the support from individuals in each sector that can champion the program will help
overcome resistance within those spaces (Brownson, 2017). The team will also develop
partnerships with local universities for support and guidance with data collection and evaluation.
Educators, trainers, and consultants will be part of the implementation team and assist with the
development of data instruments and measurement tools. Once the program's infrastructure is
complete, and a blueprint for implementation is established, staff will be recruited and trained.
Implementation. The implementation phase will begin when youth are assigned to case
managers and the service delivery process begins. The innovation will utilize evaluative and
iterative strategies to assess barriers and facilitators of implementation. Case managers will
receive on-going training and support from their supervisors to ensure quality and fidelity.
Youth and families will be encouraged to take an active role in their care by questioning
procedures and providing feedback. Youth will be consulted in the matching process with case
managers by considering their interests and preferences. Case managers will document weekly
sessions with their clients in a secure and centralized database (Probation Case Management
System). The case managers will input basic information of the meeting along with EBP
interventions utilized during their session.
CAPSTONE PROJECT PAPER AND PROTOTYPE
32
Monitoring inputs and outputs will assist in tracking the quality and fidelity of the model.
The youth-case manager relationship, client satisfaction, and employee satisfaction will be
measured via validated measurement tools, direct observations of service delivery, and focus
groups with clients and case managers. The information gathered from these strategies will help
identify existing barriers and facilitators of the model, which will inform any needed
adjustments.
Sustainment. In this phase, the evaluative process will be utilized to analyze
performance data and measurement outcomes. The overall outcomes and feedback will be used
to reexamine the implementation process and make necessary adjustments to improve the quality
of care. The findings will also inform the scaling process within the Probation department and,
ultimately, in other regions of the County.
A third-party quality assurance team will be implemented to maintain the outcomes and
increase validity and reliability. The quality assurance team will safeguard fidelity by ensuring
staff receive appropriate training and that they are delivering services with fidelity to the model.
On-going funding will also be needed to sustain the program. Securing revenue sources required
for scaling the program will be aided by positive outcomes, which will increase internal
credibility and external notoriety.
Taking a multifaceted approach to the implementation process permits the utilization of
various distinct strategies during different phases of the EPIS framework. This approach will
assist with identifying and addressing barriers as they arise while maximizing facilitators. The
flexibility will help with making needed adjustments throughout the implementation process.
Stakeholder Engagement Plan
CAPSTONE PROJECT PAPER AND PROTOTYPE
33
For the innovation to be successful in such a large system, collaboration with the courts,
partner agencies, social workers, schools, community-based organizations, caregivers, and youth
will be necessary (Bennett et al., 2017). The diffusion and sustainability of the model in L.A.
County are dependent on caseload size remaining low. L.A. County’s existing investment in
diversion programs, which support local law enforcement agencies in referring lower risk
(misdemeanor) offenders to community alternatives, will support the reduction of youth entering
probations care, helping to maintain smaller caseload sizes within probation (CCJCC, 2017). If a
significant rise in cases occurs, additional staff hiring will be required to sustain the twelve to
one ratio.
The courts will also play a crucial role in keeping lower-level offenders off probation,
shortening the length of probation orders, and in incarceration rates. Despite a 55 percent
decrease in cases handled in juvenile Court since 2005, the Court continues to formally process
close to 57 percent of referred cases (Hockenberry & Puzzanchera, 2020). Furthermore, rates of
placement orders and home on probation have remained steady since 2005, with 63 percent of
youth ordered home on probation and 28 percent ordered residential treatment in 2018. These
numbers suggest that the courts could do more to provide less restrictive alternatives for lower-
risk youth. Through collaboration with the probation department, Judges and Commissioners
may receive the same or equivalent training provided to probation officers. This will help expand
the judge’s knowledge of youth development and appropriate interventions.
The successful implementation of this proposed innovation will require clear
communication amongst all stakeholders and a fundamental agreement on the complex dynamics
contributing to the problem and a vision to solve it. Leadership at all levels will need to commit
to addressing the root causes of the problem by implementing policies that will sustain the
CAPSTONE PROJECT PAPER AND PROTOTYPE
34
change effort. According to Stirman et al. (2012), the integration of programs into policies, the
collaboration between stakeholders, and on-going support were all associated with program
sustainability. Strong leadership can help people imagine a better future and new possibilities for
addressing the problem. This will help change organizations' overall culture and allow for the
leveraging of all available resources (Seelig, 2012). The best outcomes are possible with all
stakeholders working together towards the same mission.
Financial Plans and Staging
The Positive Youth Engagement Supervision (PYES) program will operate on a budget
of just under $2.5 million for the first year and a half. Securing $1,000,000 in grants from the
federal government and agencies such as the Annie E. Casey Foundation will help start-up the
operation and cover all activities, including administrative cost, and equipment. Furthermore,
many resources, such as equipment are already available through the Department and can be
reallocated to the pilot program. The start-up revenue will also assist with training staff and
facilitate the fortification of funding sources for the First Full Year of Operation (FFYO). The
revenue for the first year will come from government grants, most of which will cover personnel
expenses. The budget includes the cost for monitoring fidelity and measuring outcomes while
operating in a surplus.
During the six-month start-up period there will be no services delivered. Therefore,
personnel expenses will be limited to half-year salaries and benefits of a program
Manager/Director ($100,000 per year), one Administrative Assistant ($50,000 per year), one
Program Analyst ($60,000), staff salaries and benefits for one month of training ($59,000). The
manager and assistant will begin the implementation process by establishing procedures and
securing the resources needed to launch the pilot.
CAPSTONE PROJECT PAPER AND PROTOTYPE
35
Much of the revenue for the first year of operation will go towards delivering services
through staffing and other personnel expenses ($985,000). Staffing will be the most valuable
resource and significant investment made. Staff will be compensated at existing county pay
scales for Deputy Probation Officer, II (DPO II) items as agreed upon with the local union. A
DPO II starting salary is approximately $67,000, including benefit packets. Supervisors' salaries
start at $97,000 per year, including benefits. The idea is to hire highly skilled master’s level case
managers that will deliver intensive, evidence-based interventions to high-needs youths and
families involved in probation. If there isn’t enough interest or staff availability with the desired
qualification within the Department, it is recommended that they be recruited from outside the
Department.
Eight case managers supported by two licensed supervisors will service approximately 98
youth. Staff training and supervision hours will build on existing skills and provide staff with
professional development. Providing staff with living wages, excellent benefits, and investing in
their professional development will positively impact their engagement. Being valued and
finding meaning in their work will render higher levels of fidelity and improve the quality of
services delivered, ultimately translating into stronger, more meaningful client-provider
relationships and improved outcomes.
Staff will be mobile and therefore, will require mileage reimbursement estimated to be at
$45,000 per year. The cost of travel for training and group outings is estimated at $50,000.
Outings will support the program model by providing youth with opportunities to participate in
activities that engage their interest and build soft skills. Some of these activities will be free of
cost and in-kind contributions; however, the budget must provide room for creativity around
CAPSTONE PROJECT PAPER AND PROTOTYPE
36
these activities. The services of a research team and trainers will be contracted for 18-months and
cost approximately $180,000.
Project Impact / Assessment Methods
The research question that the proposed innovation pursues is, does improved continuity
of care through the appointment of a single probation officer, reduced caseload sizes, and
targeted intensive case management services contribute to stronger, more meaningful
relationships between the probation-officer and the youth? A secondary research question is, do
more meaningful connections between the probation officer and the youth increase client
satisfaction, staff satisfaction, reduce the length of stay on probation, reduce youth incarceration,
and reduce overall youth recidivism?
These questions will be evaluated through a quasi-experimental research design. There
will be multiple measures used to track and ascertain answers to these questions. The instruments
will be administered at identical times to both the treatment and control groups. The
experimental group will be a convenience sample of moderate to high risk/needs youth as they
enter the JJS. The control group will be randomly selected from the population of high risk/needs
youth on receiving regular probation supervision.
The Juvenile Assessment and Intervention System (JAIS) will be utilized to assess
riks/needs. JAIS is a validated tool amongst boys and girls that assesses risk, strengths, and needs
to assist with developing targeted supervision strategies, based on underlying youth needs and
individual characteristics. This tool has been validated across various ethnic groups. (National
Council on Crime & Delinquency, n.d.; AOC, 2011). The youth will receive their initial
assessment upon entry to the program and subsequently be assessed every three months.
CAPSTONE PROJECT PAPER AND PROTOTYPE
37
The quality of the case manager-youth relationship will be measured by the Mentor-
Youth Alliance Scale (MYAS). The MYAS will be administered pre, post, and again six months
after the post-test. The MYAS instrument is composed of a 10-item, Likert-scale scored from 1
“Very False” to 4 “Very True” and is supported by evidence of high validity and reliability. It
has two subscales, caring and acceptance, with higher scores in each indicating a higher degree
of attachment to the mentor (OJJDP, n.d.; Zand et al, 2009).
Client satisfaction will be measured utilizing the Youth Services Survey-13 (YSS-13),
which has been shown to have internal validity and reliability (Liebenberg, Sanders, & Munford,
2016). Lastly, staff satisfaction will be measured via a Eudaimonic Workplace Well-being Scale
(EWWS). The 8-item, Likert-scale survey has been tested in related fields and has shown to have
high validity and reliability (Bartels, Peterson, & Reina, 2019). The YSS and EWWS will be
administered one time at the six-month mark.
Having a control group will assist with measuring the effectiveness of the intervention as
compared to regular supervision models. The existing design will limit external validity and the
ability to generalize the results to other populations or settings; however, causal inferences
between the groups studied can be made. Because of the small sample size, there will exist
questions of internal validity as well. There may also be some ethical concerns about involuntary
participation and worries about one group receiving more effective treatment than the other
group.
The evaluation design will rule out potential issues of history, instrumentation,
maturation, and testing. Because the design utilizes a non-random sample for the treatment
group, threats of selection, regression, and the interaction between selection and other threats
cannot be ruled out. Youth referred to probation by law enforcement or the Court will be
CAPSTONE PROJECT PAPER AND PROTOTYPE
38
assigned to probation officers based on their zip code, making the sample a nonprobability
purposive sample.
To assist with accurate data collection and ensure maximum participation in the study, all
participants (youth and staff) will be provided with protections of confidentiality, privacy, and
anonymity whenever possible. Fidelity to the model will be monitored via periodic audits, field
observations, and focus groups. Transparency will be provided by making all the study results
available to the public via an agency report that can be obtained on the Department website. The
data will be analyzed via hierarchical multiple regression analysis. The assumption is that all
three instruments will show a statistically significant difference between the treatment and
control groups.
Furthermore, technical violations, confinement rates, length of stay on Probation, and
recidivism rates for both groups will also be tracked at six, twelve, and eighteen months via
Probation’s Juvenile Case Management System (PCMS). Long-term recidivism outcomes will be
tracked at twenty-four and thirty-six months. The data will be assessed to inform any
adjustments that need to be made to the program.
Conclusions, Actions and Implications
The programmatic and practice changes of this youth-centered, partnership approach is
expected to produce positive outcomes in the youth’s length of time on probation, rate of
incarceration and long-term recidivism rates compared to a random sample of moderate to high-
risk youth receiving standard supervision services. With a reduction in disruptions of services
and developmentally appropriate methods, it is reasonable to expect a youth’s length of time on
probation to decrease by at least one year. The rate of detention or out-of-home placement is
expected to drop by ten to fifteen percent as compared to the control group. Comparable
CAPSTONE PROJECT PAPER AND PROTOTYPE
39
reductions have been shown in other intensive interventions such as Multi-Systemic Therapy
(MST) and Functional Family Therapy (FFT) services (Mendel, 2011; Fain et al., 2016).
Recidivism will be measured by court adjudications and sustained petitions, not arrest.
This will control for disparities in community policing practices that negatively impacting
minority youth. While inequalities in youth sentencing do exist, adjudications and sustained
petitions are a more accurate measure for reoffending. The innovation is expected to produce a
fifteen to twenty percent drop in recidivism rates, which is based on results from similar
programs (Jalbert, 2010; Mendel, 2011).
CAPSTONE PROJECT PAPER AND PROTOTYPE
40
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT B
CAPSTONE PROJECT PAPER AND PROTOTYPE
41
CAPSTONE PROJECT PAPER AND PROTOTYPE
42
ATTACHMENT C
ATTACHMENT D
3-tier system
(12 cases max)
Tier I – minimum
sessions 3-4x/mo
Higher risk/needs youth
Tier II – minimum
sessions 2-3x/mo
Moderate risk/ needs
Youth placed out of
home
Tier III – Voluntary 6-
month follow-up upon
successful completion
Minimum session
1x/mo
CAPSTONE PROJECT PAPER AND PROTOTYPE
43
ATTACHMENT F
• Outer Context
• Barrier: Sociopolitical Context- Legislation, Policies, Funding
• Facilitator: Sociopolitical Context - Policies / Advocacy
• Inner Context
• Barrier: Organizational Characteristics- Absorptive capacity - Knowledge/skills,
Readiness for Change / Culture / Leadership
• Facilitator: Organizational characteristics - Leadership / Climate
Exploration
• Outer Context
• Barrier: Interorganizational Networks
• Facilitator: Funding
• Inner Context
• Barrier: Organizational characteristics- Size, Structure
• Facilitator: Leadership- Champion
Preparation
• Outer Context
• Barrier: Leadership- Cross level congruence
• Facilitator: Interrorganizational networks- Contractor associations
• Inner Context
• Barrier: Organizational Characteristics- structure
• Facilitator: Individual adoptrer characteristics - Adaptability
Implementation
• Outer Context
• Barrier: Sociopolitical context- Legislation / Funding
• Facilitator: Public-academic collaboration- ongoing positive relationships
• Inner Context
• Barrier: Staffing- staff selection criteria, ratios
• Facilitator: Fidelity monitoring and support - Fidelity support system
Sustainment
CAPSTONE PROJECT PAPER AND PROTOTYPE
44
References
Aalsma, M., Lau, K., Perkins, A., Schwartz, K., Tu, W., Wiehe, S., Monahan, P., & Rosenman,
M. (2016). Mortality of Youth Offenders Along a Continuum of Justice System
Involvement. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 50(3), 303–310.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2015.08.030
Aarons, G. A., Hurlburt, M., & Horwitz, S. M. (2011). Advancing a conceptual model of
evidence-based practice implementation in public service sectors. Administration and
Policy in Mental Health 38, 4-23
Abrams, L. (2013). Juvenile Justice at a Crossroads: Science, Evidence, and Twenty-First
Century Reform. Social Service Review, 87(4), 725–752. https://doi.org/10.1086/674074
Ackerman, W. (1998). Socioeconomic Correlates of Increasing Crime Rates in Smaller
Communities. The Professional Geographer, 50(3), 372–387.
https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-0124.00127
Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) (2011). Screenings and Assessments Used in the
Juvenile Justice System. Retrieved from
https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/AOCBrief_RiskAndNeedsAssessement_rev01101
2.pdf
Aizer, A., & Doyle, J. (2015). Juvenile incarceration, human capital, and future crime: evidence
from randomly assigned judges. (Report). 130(2), 759–803.
https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjv003
Albrecht, B. (2011). The Limits of Restorative Justice in Prison. Peace Review, 23(3), 327–334.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10402659.2011.596059
CAPSTONE PROJECT PAPER AND PROTOTYPE
45
American Academy of Familiy Physicians (AAFP) (July 6, 2019). Continuity of Care, Definition
of. Retrieved from https://www.aafp.org/about/policies/all/definition-care.html
American Bar Association (ABA) (2016). Juveniles and Due Process: In re Gault. Insights on
Law & Society 16.2.
Annual Report (2019). 2018 Annual Report. County of Los Angeles Probation Department.
Retrieved from
https://probation.lacounty.gov/wpcontent/uploads/AR2018_Probation_v10M_MQ.pdf
Baglivio, M., Epps, N., Swartz, K., Huq, M., Sheer, A., & Hardt, N. (2014). The Prevalence of
Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) in the Lives of Juvenile Offenders. Journal of
Juvenile Justice, 3(2), 1–23. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1681541057/
Bartels, A. L., Peterson, S. J., & Reina, C. S. (2019). Eudaimonic Workplace Well-Being Scale
[Database record]. Retrieved from PsycTESTS. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/t72439-
000
Barton, W.H. and Butts, J. A. (2008) Building on Strength: Positive Youth Development in
Juvenile Justice Programs. Chicago: Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of
Chicago. Retrieved from http://www.ncjfcj.org/sites/default/files/buildingonstrengths.pdf
Barvosa, E. (2014). Unconscious bias in the suppressive policing of Black and Latino men and
boys: neuroscience, Borderlands theory, and the policymaking quest for just policing.
Politics, Groups, and Identities, 2(2), 1–24.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2014.912137
Basto-Pereira, M., Miranda, A., Ribeiro, S., & Maia, Â. (2016). Growing up with adversity:
From juvenile justice involvement to criminal persistence and psychosocial problems in
CAPSTONE PROJECT PAPER AND PROTOTYPE
46
young adulthood. Child Abuse & Neglect, 62, 63–75.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2016.10.011
Becan, J., Bartkowski, J., Knight, D., Wiley, T., DiClemente, R., Ducharme, L., … Aarons, G.
(2018). A model for rigorously applying the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation,
Sustainment (EPIS) framework in the design and measurement of a large scale
collaborative multi-site study. Health & Justice, 6(1), 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40352-018-0068-3
Becker, A. (2014). Unequal justice: juvenile sentencing in California. University of Southern
California Digital Library (USC.DL). https://doi.org/10.25549/USCTHESES-M1617
Bennett, P.M., Rabinowitz, M., Davaran, A., DeNike, M., Soto, R., Garcia, L. (2017). LA
Probation Governance Study: Review of best practices in probation. Resource
Development Associates. Los Angeles County Executive’s Office. Retrieved from
http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/probation/1026382_120dayReportRDA331.pdf
Bennett, P.M., Schiraldi, V., Leap, J., Muhammad, D., Rabinowitz, M. Lompa, K., … Leap, S.
(2017). LA Probation Department Assessment. Resource Development Associates. Los
Angeles County Executive’s Office. Retrieved from
http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/probation/1030111_LAPGS_ProbAssess20170818_2.p
df
Board of Supervisors (BOS) (August 13, 2019). Restructuring the Juvenile Justice System:
Building a Health-Focused Model. Retrieved from
http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/supdocs/139730.pdf
CAPSTONE PROJECT PAPER AND PROTOTYPE
47
Board of Supervisors (BOS) (October 1, 2019). Implementing an Enhanced Structure for
Probation Oversight. Retrieved from
http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/supdocs/140843.pdf
Bertram, B. & Michels, S. (October 30, 2019). Combating the myth of the super predator.
Retrieved from https://www.retroreport.org/video/the-superpredator-
scare/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIrs_Y0Ki16gIVEgnnCh3WSgGYEAAYAiAAEgK8AvD_B
wE
Bicchieri, C. (2017). Norms in the wild: how to diagnose, measure, and change social norms.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press
Blakemore, S. (2011). Social-Cognitive Development during Adolescence. Child Psychology
and Psychiatry: Frameworks for Practice: Second Edition (pp. 62–66). John Wiley and
Sons. doi:10.1002/9781119993971.ch11
Brownson, R. C., Colditz, G. A., & Proctor, E. K. (Eds.). (2017). Dissemination and
implementation research in health: translating science to practice. Oxford University
Press.
Burrell, B. (2006). Caseload standards for probation and parole (September 2006). American
Probation and Parole website. Accessed April, 27, 2020. Retrieved from
https://cdpsdocs.state.co.us/ccjj/Resources/Ref/2006-
09_APPA_Caseload_Standards_PP.pdf
California Department of Mental Health (CDMH) (2012). Youth Services Survey for Families
(YSS-F). Retrieved from https://www.dhcs.ca.gov/formsandpubs/MHCCY/InfoNotice12-
02Enclosure3.pdf
CAPSTONE PROJECT PAPER AND PROTOTYPE
48
Cannon, Y., Davis, G., Hsi, A., & Bochte, A. (2016). Adverse Childhood Experiences in the
New Mexico Juvenile Justice Population. The New Mexico Sentencing Commission.
Retrieved from http://nmsc.unm.edu/reports/2016/adverse-childhood-experiences-in-the-
new-mexico-juvenile-justice-population.pdf
Casey, B.J. (2015). Beyond Simple Models of Self-Control to Circuit-Based Accounts of
Adolescent Behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 66 (1), 295-319. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015156
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). (2017). 2016 Juvenile Justice
Outcome Evaluation Report Examination of Youth Released from the Division of
Juvenile Justice in Fiscal Year 2011‐12.
https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Juvenile_Justice/docs/2016-Division-of-Juvenile-Justice-
Outcome-Evaluation-Report-2-21-2017.pdf
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2019). National Center for Health Statistics.
Underlying Cause of Death 1999-2017. Vital Statistics Cooperative Program. Retrieved
from http://wonder.cdc.gov/ucd-icd10.html
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2013). CDC Health Disparities &
Inequalities Report – United States, 2013. Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report
(MMWR), 62(3), 1-187. Retrieved from
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/other/su6203.pdf
Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Center for Health Statistics (n.d.).
Underlying Cause of Death 1999-2017 on CDC WONDER Online Database. Retrieved
from https://wonder.cdc.gov/ucd-icd10.html
CAPSTONE PROJECT PAPER AND PROTOTYPE
49
Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University (2016). Applying the Science of Child
Development in Child Welfare Systems. Retrieved from
https://46y5eh11fhgw3ve3ytpwxt9r-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-
content/uploads/2016/10/HCDC_ChildWelfareSystems_rev2017.pdf
Chá vez-Garcí a, M. (2016). States of Delinquency Race and Science in the Making of
California’s Juvenile Justice System. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Cohen, E. and Pfeifer, J. (2008). Cost of Incarcerating Youth with Mental Illness. Chief
Probation Officers of California. Retrieved from
https://www.cpoc.org/sites/main/files/file-
attachments/costs_of_incarcerating_youth_with_mental_illness.pdf?1501708751
Cohen, S. D. (2017). Three Principles to Improve Outcomes for Children and Families. Science
to Policy and Practice. Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University. Retrieved
from https://46y5eh11fhgw3ve3ytpwxt9r-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-
content/uploads/2017/10/HCDC_3PrinciplesPolicyPractice.pdf
Compas, B., Hinden, B., & Gerhardt, C. (1995). Adolescent development: Pathways and
processes of risk and resilience. Annual Review of Psychology, 46, 265. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/205794054/
Countywide Criminal Justice Coordination Committee (CCJCC) Youth Diversion Subcommittee
(YDS) & the Los Angeles County Chief Executive Office (2017). A roadmap for
advancing youth diversion in Los Angeles County. Retrieved from
http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/supdocs/118024.pdf
Curtin, S., Heron, M., Miniño, A., & Warner, M. (2018). Recent Increases in Injury Mortality
Among Children and Adolescents Aged 10-19 Years in the United States: 1999-
CAPSTONE PROJECT PAPER AND PROTOTYPE
50
2016. National Vital Statistics Reports: from the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics System, 67(4),
1–16. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr67/nvsr67_04.pdf
De Bellis, M., & Zisk, A. (2014). The Biological Effects of Childhood Trauma. Child and
Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 23(2), 185–222.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chc.2014.01.002
Devylder, J. (2016). Preventing Schizophrenia and Severe Mental Illness: A Grand Challenge for
Social Work. Research on Social Work Practice, 26(4), 449–459.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731515622687
Development Services Group (DSG) (2014). Disproportionate Minority Contact. Washington,
D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
https://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/litreviews/Disproportionate_Minority_Contact.pdf
Dowd, N. (2011). Justice for kids keeping kids out of the juvenile justice system. New York: New
York University.
Duppong Hurley, K., Lambert, M., Gross, T., Thompson, R., & Farmer, E. (2017). The Role of
Therapeutic Alliance and Fidelity in Predicting Youth Outcomes During Therapeutic
Residential Care. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 25(1), 37–45.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1063426616686756
Erikson, E. (1950). Childhood and society. ([1st ed.]). New York: Norton
Evans-Chase, M. (2014). Addressing Trauma and Psychosocial Development in Juvenile Justice-
Involved Youth: A Synthesis of the Developmental Neuroscience, Juvenile Justice and
Trauma Literature. Laws, 3(4), 744–758. https://doi.org/10.3390/laws3040744
CAPSTONE PROJECT PAPER AND PROTOTYPE
51
FBI: UCR (2016). 2016 crime in the United States: Arrest by race and ethnicity. Retrieved from
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/tables/table-
21
Fain, T., Turner, S., & Shahidinia, N. (2018). Los Angeles County Juvenile Justice Crime
Prevention Act: Fiscal Year 2016–2017 Report, Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND
Corporation, RR1908-LACPD, 2017. Retrieved from
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR2400/RR2401/RAND_
RR2401.pdf
Feinstein, R. (2015). White privilege, juvenile justice, and criminal identities: a qualitative
analysis of the perceptions and self-identification of incarcerated youth. Contemporary
Justice Review, 18(3), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10282580.2015.1057708
Felitti, V. J., Anda, R. F., Nordenberg, D., Williamson, D. F., Spitz, A. M., Edwards, V., &
Marks, J. S. (1998). Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many
of the leading causes of death in adults: The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE)
Study. American journal of preventive medicine, 14(4), 245-258.
Gal, T., & Moyal, S. (2011). Juvenile Victims in Restorative Justice. The British Journal of
Criminology, 51(6), 1014–1034. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azr052
Gochyyev, P., & Skeem, J. (2019). Efficiently assessing firm, fair, and caring relationships:
Short form of the Dual Role Relationship Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 31(3),
352–364. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000672
Gove, T. G. (2011). Implicit bias and law enforcement. The Police Chief, 78(10), 4456.
Retrieved from https://www.policechiefmagazine.org/implicit-bias-and-law-enforcement/
CAPSTONE PROJECT PAPER AND PROTOTYPE
52
Graham, M., Dedel, K., Glindmeyer, D., Spierer, R., Trzcinski, J. (2014) DOJ/L.A. County
MOA on L.A. Probation Camps: 11th Monitoring Report.
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2014/11/04/lacamps_11mtr_9-17-
14.pdf
Gramlich, J. (January 3, 2019). 5 facts about crime in the U.S. FACT TANK: News in the
Numbers. PEW Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/03/5-
facts-about-crime-in-the-u-s/
Gray, H. (1989). Television, black Americans, and the American dream. Critical Studies in Mass
Communication, 6(4), 376–386. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295038909366763
Greenfield, K. (2011). The myth of choice: personal responsibility in a world of limits. New
Haven: Yale University Press.
Greenwald, G. A. & Krieger, H. L. (2006). Implicit Bias: Scientific Foundations. Retrieved from
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/californialawreview/vol94/iss4/1
Griffin, P., Addie, S., Adams, and Firestine, K. (2011). Trying Juveniles as Adults: An Analysis
of State Transfer Laws and Reporting. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/232434.pdf
Hannon, L., & Defina, R. (2005). Violent Crime in African American and White Neighborhoods:
Is Poverty’s Detrimental Effect Race-Specific? Journal of Poverty, 9(3), 49–67.
https://doi.org/10.1300/J134v09n03_03
Harris, K., Duncan, G., & Boisjoly, J. (2002). Evaluating the Role of “Nothing to Lose”
Attitudes on Risky Behavior in Adolescence. Social Forces, 80(3), 1005–1039.
https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2002.0008
CAPSTONE PROJECT PAPER AND PROTOTYPE
53
Hartnett, S. (2008). The Annihilating Public Policies of the Prison-Industrial Complex; or,
Crime, Violence, and Punishment in An Age of Neoliberalism (Book Review). Rhetoric
and Public Affairs. Michigan State University Press. https://doi.org/10.1353/rap.0.0050
Hawkins, J., Jenson, J., Catalano, R., Fraser, M., Botvin, G., Shapiro, V., … Stone, S. (2015).
Unleashing the Power of Prevention. Retrieved from
http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/85h160b5
Heron, M. (2019). Deaths: Leading Causes for 2017. National Vital Statistics Reports: from the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics,
National Vital Statistics System, 68(6), 1–76
Herz, D.C., Chan, K., Lee, S.K., Ross, M.N., McCroskey, J., Newell, M., & Fraser. (2015). The
Los Angeles County Juvenile Probation Outcomes Study. Advancement Project.
Retrieved from: http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/supdocs/92794.pdf
Herz, D.C., & Chan, K. (2017). The Los Angeles County Juvenile Probation Outcomes Study
Part II: Executive Summary. Cal State University Los Angeles. Retrieved from:
http://www.juvenilejusticeresearch.com/node/12
Hirschfield, P. (2018). The Role of Schools in Sustaining Juvenile Justice System Inequality.
Future of Children, 28(1), 11–35.
Hsieh, C., & Pugh, M. (1993). Poverty, Income Inequality, and Violent Crime: A Meta-Analysis
of Recent Aggregate Data Studies. Criminal Justice Review, 18(2), 182–202.
https://doi.org/10.1177/073401689301800203
Hockenberry, S., and Puzzanchera, C. (2019). Juvenile Court Statistics 2017. Pittsburgh, PA:
National Center for Juvenile Justice. Retrieved from
http://www.ncjj.org/pdf/jcsreports/jcs2017report.pdf
CAPSTONE PROJECT PAPER AND PROTOTYPE
54
Hockenberry, S. and Puzzanchera, C. (2020) Juvenile Court Statistics 2018. Pittsburgh, PA:
National Center for Juvenile Justice. Retrieved from
https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh176/files/media/document/juvenile-court-
statistics-2018.pdf
Hockenberry, S. (2019). Delinquency Cases in Juvenile Court, 2016. Pittsburgh, PA: National
Center for Juvenile Justice. Retrieved from
https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh176/files/pubs/252473.pdf
Hockenberry, S. (2019). Juvenile Justice Statistics. Fact sheet. Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention. Retrieved from https://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/252473.pdf
Hockenberry, S., and Puzzanchera, C. (2018). Juvenile Court Statistics 2016. Pitts-burgh, PA:
National Center for Juvenile Justice. Retrieved from:
https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/njcda/pdf/jcs2016.pdf
International Youth Justice Systems: Promoting Youth Development and Alternative
Approaches: A Position Paper of the Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine.
(2016). Journal of Adolescent Health, 59(4), 482–486.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2016.08.003
Jacobson, M. P., Schiraldi, V., Daly, R., and Hotez, E. (2017). Less Is More: How Reducing
Probation Populations Can Improve Outcomes. Program in Criminal Justice Policy and
Management, Harvard Kennedy School. Retrieved from
https://www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/centers/wiener/programs/pcj/files/less_is_
more_final.pdf
Jalbert, S., Rhodes, W., Flygare, C., & Kane, M. (2010). Testing Probation Outcomes in an
Evidence-Based Practice Setting: Reduced Caseload Size and Intensive Supervision
CAPSTONE PROJECT PAPER AND PROTOTYPE
55
Effectiveness. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 49(4), 233–253.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10509671003715987
Journal of Adolescent Health. (2016). International youth justice systems: Promoting youth
development and alternative approaches: A position paper of society for adolescent
health and medicine. 59 (4), 482-486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2016.08.003
Kann, L., Kinchen, S., Shanklin, S., Flint, K., Hawkins, J., Harris, W., … Zaza, S. (2014). Youth
Risk Behavior Surveillance — United States, 2013. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly
Report: Surveillance Summaries, 63(4), 1–168.
Kaste, M. (2018). Despite Heightened Fear Of School Shootings, It's Not A Growing Epidemic.
NPR. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/2018/03/15/593831564/the-disconnect-
between-perceived-danger-in-u-s-schools-and-reality
Kennealy, P., Skeem, J., Manchak, S., Eno Louden, J., & Kennealy, P. (2012). Firm, fair, and
caring officer-offender relationships protect against supervision failure. Law and Human
Behavior, 36(6), 496–505. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093935
KIDS COUNT (2017). Child population by race in the United States. Annie E. Casey
Foundation. Retrieved on July 2, 2019 from
https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/103-child-population-by-
race#detailed/1/any/false/871,870,573,869,36,868,867,133,38,35/68,69,67,12,70,66,71,7
2/423,424
Korman, H. & Dierkhising, C.B. (2016). A Culture of Care for All: Envisioning the LA Model.
Children’s Defense Fund. Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from
https://probation.lacounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/LA-Model-A-Culture-of-Care-for-All-
2.pdf
CAPSTONE PROJECT PAPER AND PROTOTYPE
56
Lerner, R., Napolitano, C., Boyd, M., Mueller, M. & Callina, K. (2014). Mentoring and positive
youth development. In D. L. DuBois & M. J. Karcher The SAGE Program on Applied
Developmental Science: Handbook of youth mentoring (pp. 17-28). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781412996907.n2
Liebenberg, L., Sanders, J., & Munford, R. (2016). Youth Services Survey-13 [Database record].
Retrieved from PsycTESTS. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/t60158-000
Lopez‐Aguado, P. (2016). The collateral consequences of prisonization: Racial sorting, carceral
identity, and community criminalization. Sociology Compass, 10(1), 12-23. Retrieved
from https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12342
Mack, J. (1909). The Juvenile Court. Harvard Law Review, 23(2), 104–122.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1325042
Mallett, C. A. (2015). The school-to-prison pipeline: a comprehensive assessment. New York,
NY: Springer Publishing Company. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Marsh, J., Angell, B., Andrews, C., & Curry, A. (2012). Client-Provider Relationship and
Treatment Outcome: A Systematic Review of Substance Abuse, Child Welfare, and
Mental Health Services Research. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research,
3(4), 233–267. https://doi.org/10.5243/jsswr.2012.15
Maxwell, J. (2018). Our Medias Coverage of Gun violence. Odyssey. Retrieved from:
https://www.theodysseyonline.com/media-coverage-gun-violence
Mears, D., Shollenberger, T., Willison, J., Owens, C., & Butts, J. (2010). Practitioner Views of
Priorities, Policies, and Practices in Juvenile Justice. Crime & Delinquency, 56(4), 535–
563. https://doi.org/10.1177/00111287083246643(4), 233–267.
https://doi.org/10.5243/jsswr.2012.15
CAPSTONE PROJECT PAPER AND PROTOTYPE
57
Mendel, R. A. (2011). No place for kids: The case for reducing juvenile incarceration. Annie E.
Casey Foundation. The Annie E. Casey Foundation. Retrieved from:
https://www.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/aecf-NoPlaceForKidsFullReport-2011.pdf
Mendel, R. A. (2018). Transforming juvenile probation: A vision for getting it right. The Annie
E. Casey Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/aecf-
transformingjuvenileprobation-2018.pdf
McCroskey, J., Herz, D., & Putnam, E.H. (2017). Crossover youth: Los Angeles county
probation youth with previous referrals to child protective services. Children’s Data
Network. Retrieved from http://datanetwork.org/research
Miller, L. (March 17, 2020). Youths in detention should be released to reduce coronavirus risk,
advocates say. The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-03-17/fearing-harmful-effects-of-virus-
juvenile-justice-attorneys-push-for-clients-release
Miniño, A.M. (2010). Mortality Among Teenagers Aged 12–19 Years: United States, 1999–
2006. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. NCHS Data Brief. No. 37. Retrieved
from https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db37.pdf
Mitchell, Y.T. & Bromfield, T.L. (2019). Gun Violence and the Minority Experience. National
Council on Family Relations. Retrieved from https://www.ncfr.org/ncfr-report/winter-
2018/gun-violence-and-minority-experience
Moullin, J. C., Dickson, K. S., Stadnick, N. A., Rabin, B., & Aarons, G. A. (2019). Systematic
review of the exploration, preparation, implementation, sustainment (EPIS)
framework. Implementation Science, 14(1), 1-16. Retrieved from
CAPSTONE PROJECT PAPER AND PROTOTYPE
58
https://implementationscience.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/s13012-018-0842-
6.pdf
Myers, T. A. (2009). The Unconstitutionality, Ineffectiveness, and Alternatives of Gang
Injunctions. Michigan Journal of Race and Law, 14(2), 285-306.
National Council on Crime & Delinquency (n.d.). Juvenile Assessment and Intervention System
(JAIS). Retrieved from https://www.nccdglobal.org/assessment/juvenile-assessment-and-
intervention-system-jais
Najman, J., Hayatbakhsh, M., Mcgee, T., Bor, W., O’Callaghan, M., & Williams, G. (2009). The
Impact of Puberty on Aggression/Delinquency: Adolescence to Young Adulthood.
Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 42(3), 369–386.
https://doi.org/10.1375/acri.42.3.369
Nicodemo, A. & Petronio, L. (2018). Schools are safer than they were in the 90s, and school
shootings are not more common than they used to be, researchers say.
News@Northeastern. Retrieved from https://news.northeastern.edu/2018/02/26/schools-
are-still-one-of-the-safest-places-for-children-researcher-says/
Nunn, K. (2002). The child as other: race and differential treatment in the juvenile justice
system.(Symposium: The End of Adolescence). DePaul Law Review, 51(3).
Ochoa, L. (2019). Capstone Proposal. University of Southern California. Suzanne Dworak-Peck,
School of Social Work.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) (2018). Juvenile justice system
structure and process; Case flow diagram. U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from
https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/structure_process/case.html
CAPSTONE PROJECT PAPER AND PROTOTYPE
59
Ogle, M. R., & Turanovic, J. J. (2019). Is getting tough with low-risk kids a good idea? The
effect of failure to appear detention stays on juvenile recidivism. Criminal Justice Policy
Review, 30(4), 507-537. Retrieved from
http://users.soc.umn.edu/~uggen/Ogle_Turanovic_CJPR_19.pdf
Parham-Payne, W. (2014). The role of the media in the disparate response to gun violence in
America. Journal of Black Studies, 45(8), 752-768. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1177/0021934714555185
Park, S., Holody, K., & Zhang, X. (2012). Race in Media Coverage of School Shootings: A
Parallel Application of Framing Theory and Attribute Agenda Setting. Journalism &
Mass Communication Quarterly, 89(3), 475–494.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699012448873
Paradkar, S. (2016, November 5). Lack of diversity in media a form of oppression. Toronto Star.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1836131425/
Paus, T., Keshavan, M., & Giedd, J.N. (2008). Why do many psychiatric disorders emerge
during adolescence? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9(12), 947–957.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2513
Petro, J. (2006). Increasing collaboration and coordination of the child welfare and juvenile
justice systems to better serve dual jurisdiction youth: A literature review. Child Welfare
League of America: Washington, DC. Available online at www. cwla.
org/programs/juvenilejustice/jjlitreview. htm.
Perez, N. M., Jennings, W. G., & Baglivio, M. T. (2018). A path to serious, violent, chronic
delinquency: The harmful aftermath of adverse childhood experiences. Crime &
Delinquency, 64(1), 3-25.
CAPSTONE PROJECT PAPER AND PROTOTYPE
60
Petteruti, A., Schindler, M., & Ziedenberg, J. (2014). Stickershock: Calculating the full price tag
for youth incarceration, justice Policy Institute. Retrieved from
http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/sticker_shock_final_v2.pd
f
PEW charitable trust foundation (2015). Re-examining juvenile incarceration: High cost, poor
outcomes sparks shift to alternative. Public Safety Performance Project. Retrieved from:
https://www.pewtrusts.org/-
/media/assets/2015/04/reexamining_juvenile_incarceration.pdf
Pickett, J., & Chiricos, T. (2012). Controlling other people’s children: racialized views of
delinquency and whites’; punitive attitudes toward juvenile offenders. Criminology,
50(3), 673–710. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2012.00280.x
Pierson, E., Simoiu, C., Overgoor, J., Corbett-Davies, S., Ramachandran, V., Phillips, C., &
Goel, S. (2017). A large-scale analysis of racial disparities in police stops across the
United States. https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.05678
Piquero, A. (2008). Disproportionate Minority Contact. The Future of Children, 18(2), 59–79.
Retrieved from http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/future_of_children/v018/18.2.piquero.html
Putman, A. (2017). Perpetuation of Whiteness Ideologies in U.S. College Student Discourse.
Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 46(6), 497–517.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17475759.2017.1380068
Puzzanchera, C. (2019). Juvenile Arrests, 2017. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile
Justice. Retrieved from
https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh176/files/pubs/252713.pdf
CAPSTONE PROJECT PAPER AND PROTOTYPE
61
Quas, J. A., Castro, A., Bryce, C. I., & Granger, D. A. (2018). Stress physiology and memory for
emotional information: Moderation by individual differences in pubertal hormones.
Developmental Psychology, 54(9), 1606-1620.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1037/dev0000532
Ryan, J., & Testa, M. (2005). Child maltreatment and juvenile delinquency: Investigating the
role of placement and placement instability. Children and Youth Services Review, 27(3),
227–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2004.05.007
Sawyer, W. (2018). Youth Confinement: The whole Pie. Prison Policy Initiative. Retrieved
from: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2018/02/27/youthpie2018press/
eval2010_508.pdf
Seelig, T. (2012). inGenius: A crash course on creativity. New York: Harper Collins.
Taleb, N. N. (2010). The black swan: The impact of the highly improbable. New York:
Random House.
Shin, H., Marsh, J., Cao, D., & Andrews, C. (2011). Client–Provider relationship in
comprehensive substance abuse treatment: Differences in residential and nonresidential
settings. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 41(4), 335–346.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2011.03.007
Sickmund, M., Sladky, T.J., Kang, W., and Puzzanchera, C. (2011) "Easy Access to the Census
of Juveniles in Residential Placement." Retrieved from www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezacjrp/
Simmonds, M. (2019). The Cost of Juvenile Justice. Retrieved June 26, 2019, from
http://www.juvenilejusticejourneys.com/the-cost-of-juvenile-justice/
Smith, L. S., Choueiti, M., Piepert, K. (2016). Inclusion or Invisibility? Institute for Diversity
and Empowerment at Annenberg (IDEA). Comprehensive Annenberg Report on
CAPSTONE PROJECT PAPER AND PROTOTYPE
62
Diversity in Entertainment. Retrieved from
https://annenberg.usc.edu/sites/default/files/2017/04/07/MDSCI_CARD_Report_FINAL
_Exec_Summary.pdf
Snyder, H.N. (2002). Juvenile Arrest 2000. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/191729.pdf
Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine (2016). International Youth Justice Systems:
Promoting Youth Development and Alternative Approaches: A Position Paper of the
Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine. Journal of Adolescent Health, 59(4), 482–
486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2016.08.003
Spencer, K. B., Charbonneau, A. K., & Glaser, J. (2016). Implicit bias and policing. Social and
Personality Psychology Compass, 10(1), 50-63.
Stirman, S.W., Kimberly, J., Cook, N., Calloway, A., Castro, F., Charns, M. (2012). The
sustainability of new programs and innovations: a review of the empirical literature and
recommendations for future research. Implementation Science, 7(17), 1-19. Retrieved
from https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186/1748-5908-7-17.pdf
Strang, H., & Sherman, L. (2003). Repairing the harm: victims and restorative justice. (Utah
Restorative Justice Conference)(Australia)(United Kingdom). Utah Law Review, 2003(1).
Summers, A. (2015). Disproportionality rates for children of color in foster care (fiscal year
2013). Retrieved from https://www.ncjfcj.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/NCJFCJ-
Disproportionality-TAB-2015_0.pdf
Tanenhaus, D. S. (2016). Juvenile justice in global perspective: From Chicago to shanghai and
back to first principles. Insights on Law and Society 16(2), 4-9.
CAPSTONE PROJECT PAPER AND PROTOTYPE
63
Teplin, L.A, Abram, K.M., Washburn, J.J., Welty, L.J., Hershfield, J.A., and Dulcan, M.K.
(2013). The Northwestern Juvenile Project: Overview. U.S. Dept. of Justice. Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) (Washington, DC). Retrieved
from https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh176/files/pubs/234522.pdf
The Antelope Valley Times (May 26, 2020). L.A. County starts planning for shift in juvenile
justice system. Retrieved from http://theavtimes.com/2020/05/26/l-a-county-starts-
planning-for-shift-in-juvenile-justice-system/
The Economist (2006). Inequality and The American Dream.
Thompson, R. A. (2014). Stress and child development. The Future of Children. 24 (1), 41-59.
Princeton University. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2014.0004
Tobon, J. I., Reid, G. J., & Goffin, R. D. (2014). Continuity of care in children’s mental health:
development of a measure. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental
Health Services Research, 41(5), 668-686. Retrieved from
https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2661&context=etd
Travis, R., & Leech, T. (2014). Empowerment‐Based Positive Youth Development: A New
Understanding of Healthy Development for African American Youth. Journal of
Research on Adolescence, 24(1), 93–116. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12062
Tucker, J. and Palomino, J. (April 26, 2019). Vanishing Violence: Cost of locking up a youth in
California doubles, data show - San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved from
https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/Vanishing-Violence-Cost-of-locking-up-a-
youth-in-13793488.php
CAPSTONE PROJECT PAPER AND PROTOTYPE
64
Uniform Crime Reporting Statistics (UCRS) (n.d.). Results from state-level crime estimates
database. Federal Bureau of Investigation. Retrieved January 1, 2019, from
https://www.ucrdatatool.gov/Search/Crime/State/RunCrimeStatebyState.cfm
United Nations (2015). Fact sheet on juvenile justice. Department of Economics and Social
Affairs. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/development/desa/youth/juvenile-justice-
factsheet.html
Washburn, M. (2017). California’s Division of Juvenile Justice Reports High Recidivism Despite
Surging Costs. Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice. Retrieved from
http://www.cjcj.org/news/11350
Wenzel, M., Okimoto, T., Feather, N., & Platow, M. (2010). Justice through consensus: Shared
identity and the preference for a restorative notion of justice. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 40(6), 909–930. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.657
Wilson, H., & Hoge, R. (2013). The Effect of Youth Diversion Programs on Recidivism: A
Meta-Analytic Review. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40(5), 497–518.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854812451089
World Health Organization (2018). Coming of age: Adolescent health. Retrieved from
http://www.who.int/health-topics/adolescents/coming-of-age-adolescent-health
Zand, D. H., Thomson, N., Cervantes, R., Espiritu, R., Klagholz, D., LaBlanc, L., & Taylor, A.
(2009). The mentor–youth alliance: The role of mentoring relationships in promoting
youth competence. Journal of adolescence, 32(1), 1-17. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2007.12.006
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Youth Empowerment Learning Collaborative After School Program
PDF
Close the health gap: improving patient access to psychiatric treatment through primary care and telepsychiatry integration
PDF
Smart decarceration of urban Native American youth within Los Angeles County
PDF
Beacon: a curriculum for change
PDF
From “soul calling” to calling a therapist: meeting the mental health needs of Hmong youth through the integration of spiritual healing, culturally responsive practice and technology
PDF
The art of connection: youth stories about life and meaning. Voices of Promise: using social practice art for youth connection
PDF
The Universal Record Data Sharing System
PDF
SCALE UP: an integrated wellness framework for schools
PDF
Building a trauma-informed community to address adverse childhood experiences
PDF
Sticks and stones: training protocol strategy to reduce violence in relationships
PDF
Institute on social practice integration research and education (INSPIRE): a workforce development solution to close the health gap
PDF
Mental Health First
PDF
Social emotional learning the future of education
PDF
An intersectional approach to addressing the grand challenge to achieve equal opportunity and justice for neurodivergent individuals in mental health care
PDF
Second chance or second class: creating pathways to employment for individuals with criminal records
PDF
Engaging African American families: assessment, connection, and treatment strategies for lasting change
PDF
Lassen youth wellness
PDF
Empower Faith: equipping faith communities for effective engagement & compassionate reentry support
PDF
Staying the Course: runaway prevention program
PDF
From Care to College (C2C): improving academic outcomes for youth in foster care – through technology and social emotional learning
Asset Metadata
Creator
Ochoa, Liovardo
(author)
Core Title
Improving continuity of care in the juvenile justice system: A pilot proposal
School
Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of Social Work
Degree
Doctor of Social Work
Degree Program
Social Work
Degree Conferral Date
2020-08
Publication Date
05/17/2022
Defense Date
07/31/2020
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
adolescent development,client-provider relationship,evidence-based practices,healthy development of youth,improving outcomes,incarceration,Los Angeles,OAI-PMH Harvest,probation,recidivism,reduced caseload sizes,service delivery,Social Innovation,social norms,Supervision,youth first approach,youth-centered
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Rank, Michael (
committee member
)
Creator Email
leo_037_1@yahoo.com,liovardo@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC111313288
Unique identifier
UC111313288
Document Type
Capstone project
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Ochoa, Liovardo
Type
texts
Source
20220517-usctheses-batch-942
(batch),
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
adolescent development
client-provider relationship
evidence-based practices
healthy development of youth
improving outcomes
recidivism
reduced caseload sizes
service delivery
social norms
youth first approach
youth-centered