Analysis of Georgia s **-Day Short-Term

Program for Juvenile Offenders

Submitted To:

Pete Colbenson, Ph.D.

Executive Director

Children and Youth Coordinating Council

January 13, 2004

Applied Research Services, Inc.

turning data into decisions

Project Staff John C. Speir, Ph.D.

Tammy Meredith, Ph.D.

Sharon C. Johnson

Heather Hull

Applied Research Services, Inc.

663 Ethel Street, NW

Altanta, GA 30318

404-***-****

abqeom@r.postjobfree.com

The Children and Youth Coordinating Council (CYCC) commissioned Applied Re-

search Services (ARS) to conduct a preliminary investigation into the re-offending

patterns of juveniles ordered to spend time in Georgia s 90-day Short-Term Pro-

gram (STP). The central question is whether youths placed in STP exhibit improved

re-offense rates compared to similarly situated youths placed on probation. The

research focused on two main questions:

1. Is there an observable difference between Georgia youths placed in STP

compared to those placed on probation (demographics, referral type, of-

fense type, prior history)?

2. Is there a measurable reduction in re-offending among youths placed in

STP compared to similarly situated probationers at the end of a two-year

follow-up period?

Data Sources

In Georgia, juvenile case management and local probationary services are orga-

nized into independent and non-independent court systems. The independent courts,

such as Fulton and Cobb Counties, depend on the Juvenile Case Activity Tracking

(JCAT) System as the primary case management system. Information on youth

referrals, charges, and dispositions in the independent juvenile courts was retrieved

from JCAT. The remaining courts, also referred to as DJJ served courts, rely on the

Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) Juvenile Tracking System (JTS).

This state operated case management system contains referrals, charges, disposi-

tion, and facility admissions for all youths committed to the custody of DJJ (includ-

ing the independent courts), as well as youths placed on probation in the DJJ served

juvenile court systems. Information for the DJJ served court system cases was

retrieved from JTS.

Issues to Consider in Conducting Recidivism Research

The study examines a variety of outcome measures associated with juvenile re-

offending. Unfortunately, there is no single, accepted measure of re-offending used

nationwide or recommended by the Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency and

Prevention (OJJDP) to evaluate juvenile justice programs, such as the Short-Term

Program. Each measure has inherent advantages and disadvantages which must be

taken into consideration, and each is impacted by the way researchers select the

study cohort and define their follow-up period. These reasons usually explain why

agencies often produce disparate re-offending rates over time. Recognizing these

problems, this study investigates over a dozen distinct measures of re-offending.

Page 3

This study also includes a comparison group in order to assess the effectiveness of

STP in comparison to another DJJ program probation. For example, if the re-

offense rate for STP was 50%, one might incorrectly conclude that STP is ineffec-

tive. However, if the similarly situated youths placed on probation exhibited a 75%

re-offense rate, the STP findings now take on an entirely new interpretation. While

policy-makers may conclude that both re-offense rates are unacceptable and in-

consistent with the agency mission, the lower, hypothetical STP rate suggests that

the program is resulting in improved outcomes over probation. To provide such a

benchmark, this study includes juvenile probationers as an appropriate comparison

group.

Study Methodology

The study includes all youths ordered to serve time in STP or on probation between

January 1, 2000 and September 30, 2001. This 21-month cohort window provides a

24-month follow-up period (ending in September 30, 2003), to determine if STP and

probation youths re-offended during the follow-up period. The January 1, 2000 start

date was selected because Georgia STP experts believe that the STP has not un-

dergone any substantial program changes statewide since this time. To track juve-

nile re-offending, the JCAT and JTS databases were restructured and merged to

identify the following:

1. Juveniles ordered to serve time in an STP or placed on probation between

January 1, 2000 and September 30, 2001.

2. Most serious referral charge associated with the STP or probationary sen-

tence which made the youth eligible for the study cohort.

3. Offense type of the most serious referral charge.

4. New referrals and dispositions following the STP or probation sentence

that occurred during the two year follow-up period.

Although the JCAT and JTS case management systems allow the user to link all

information for one individual youth, it is not uncommon for youth to have multiple

referrals filed on the same day or the same week, have multiple charges associated

with any referral, and have multiple and diverse dispositions associated with each

charge. To deal with this issue, the study tracked individual youths by capturing

each referral event and the most serious charge and disposition associated with that

event. To accomplish this, referrals associated with the same arresting event or

Page 4

referrals that were filed together were collapsed to capture the most serious charges

and dispositions of the event.

Although the juvenile court data provide sufficient information to track any new

juvenile referral, these data do not contain any new contact with the adult criminal

justice system, which may occur among older juveniles who turned age 17 during

the 24-month follow-up period. As part of an on-going research agreement with the

Georgia Crime Information Center (GCIC), ARS matched the study data with GCIC

adult arrest histories, using a unique naming index. When merged with juvenile data,

the GCIC information allowed for the identification of youth arrested as an adult

during the follow-up period.1

Research Findings

The evaluation cohort includes 2,149 youths ordered to serve time in the STP and

16,748 youths ordered to serve time on probation between January 1, 2000 and

September 30, 2001, for a total study cohort of 18,897 youths. Fifty-one percent of

the youths came from independent courts and 49% came from the DJJ served

courts. The first research question is whether there are any important differences

between the youths sent to STP and probation. Table 1 on the next page presents a

demographic and legal profile of the study cohort.

Information on the cohort was obtained from DJJ and independent court automated

records. As shown in Table 1, these data sources each contribute 50% of the STP

and probation cases, which is consistent with other statewide estimates. The study

was designed to capture every STP and probation disposition during the 21-month

study period, although it is possible that this cohort does not represent every eligible

case. Clerical errors in recording case dispositions, missing dispositions in the inde-

pendent court data, as well as changes to court orders could lead to a loss of cases.

Despite these potential problems, there is no evidence that such problems are wide-

spread and threaten the validity of the study design.

The demographic data in Table 1 show that there are only modest differences be-

tween the two groups of youth (those ordered to STP vs. probation). Prior to this

study, many assumed that STP youths were much older than probationers. The data

show that the average (and median) age for both groups is 15 years. As expected,

there are more males receiving an STP disposition (80%) compared to probation

(71%). In terms of their crime type, 36% of the STP youths have a felony adjudica-

1

The GCIC arrest data were only available up to September 1, 2002, resulting in an undercount of

arrests occurring between September 1, 2002 and September 30, 2003.

Page 5

tion compared to 30% in the probation cohort. The probation cohort, as expected,

has slightly more misdemeanor offenders (3%). There are no differences in the

types of crime at referral across the two cohorts. Although probationers do show a

slightly higher percentage of crimes against person, this difference is likely attribut-

able to misdemeanor assaults and battery, not serious violent felonies.

Table 1.

Summary of Study Cohort

Short-Term

Probation

Program

N o. % N o. %

Study Cohort

Independent

688 32 8,931 53

Courts

DJJ Served

1,461 68 7,817 47

Courts

Total 2,149 16,748

S ex

Male 1,713 80 11,925 71

Female 436 20 4,823 29

15 15

Average Age

Presenting Crim e

Type

Misdemeanor 733 34 6,214 37

Felony 769 36 5,024 30

Unknown 647 30 5,510 33

Presenting Crim e

Category

Crimes

270 13 2,968 18

Against Persons

Property 703 33 4,739 28

Drug

72 3 469 3

P o sse ssi o n

Page 6

As seen in Table 2, there are notable differences between STP participants and

probationers in terms of their prior juvenile record. The STP cohort has significantly

more prior juvenile justice contacts than the probation cohort. Specifically, 45% of

the STP youth are first-timers compared to 65% of the probation cohort. Al-

though fewer STP participants are first-timers, both the STP and probation cohorts

have the same proportion of serious repeat violators; 9% of the STP cohort and 8%

of the probationers has three or more prior contacts.

Table 2.

Prior Juvenile Probation and Short-Term Program Dispositions

No

K now n

Priors 1 Prior 2 Priors 3+ Priors Total

Prior Probation Dispositions

STP 57% 22% 12% 9% 100%

Probationers 66% 17% 9% 8% 100%

Prior STP Dispositions

STP 72% 15% 8% 5% 100%

Probationers 95% 3% 1% 1% 100%

Total Prior Dispositons

STP 45% 18% 15% 22% 100%

Probationers 65% 16% 9% 10% 100%

Examining Re-Offense Rates: STP Participants and Probationers

Table 3 compares the re-offense rates over a 24-month period for youth ordered to

spend time in STP and youth ordered to probation on three recidivism measures2 :

new delinquency referral or adult arrest; new delinquency referral only; new STP

disposition. Using the broadest definition of recidivism, the STP cohort clearly has a

re-offense rate; 62% of the STP cohort had a new delinquency referral or adult

arrest compared to 51% of the probationers. The difference is less striking when

using new delinquency referral as the outcome measure; 43% of STP youth re-

2

Detailed analysis includes 16 unique measures: a new referral, a new referral for delinquency, a new

felony delinquency referral, a new misdemeanor delinquency referral, a new commitment, a new

commitment for delinquency, a new felony delinquency commitment, a new misdemeanor delinquency

commitment, a new STP, a new STP for delinquency, a new felony delinquency STP, a new misde-

meanor delinquency STP, a new probation, a new probation for delinquency, a new felony delinquency

probation, a new misdemeanor delinquency probation.

Page 7

offend compared to 39% of probationers. Finally, felony offenses account for most

of the new delinquent referrals for both STP juveniles and probationers 58% and

51% respectively. In summary, youth ordered to spend time in STP do not perform

any better during the follow-up period than comparable probationers.

Table 3.

2 Year Recidivism Rates Among Juveniles in Georgia's Short Term Program and Probation

Includes Delinquent Referrals with Disposition Dates Between Jan. 1, 2000 & Sep. 30, 2001. Follow-up period

Sep. 30, 2001 - Sep. 30, 2003.

Juveniles

in a Short Juveniles

Term on

Program Probation

Recidivism Measure

New Delinquency Referral or

62%

Adult Arrest 51%

New Delinquency Referral of the 43% of the 39%

43% 39%

Fe lo ny 25% 58% 20% 51%

Misd e me ano r 14% 33% 13% 34%

Unkno wn 4% 10% 6% 15%

100% 100%

New Short Term Program for of the

13% of the 13% 9%

Delinquency 9%

Fe lo ny 7% 54% 5% 50%

Misd e me ano r 5% 38% 3% 36%

Unkno wn 1% 8% 1% 14%

Data Sources: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Juvenile Tracking System (JTS); Juvenile Court Activity

Tracking System (JCAT), Georgia Independent Juvenile Courts.

STP youth are more likely than probationers to re-enter the system with a felony

offense. While Table 3 reflects re-offense rates for all juveniles in the cohort, Table

4 examines the same outcomes measures but categorizes youth according to their

most serious presenting offense that led to the STP or probation disposition. The

objective is to determine whether re-offense rates vary depending upon the type of

offender (defined by offense behavior). Specifically, do selected groups of STP

Page 8

youth show improved outcomes, such as those committing crimes against persons

or property crimes? Despite the introduction of crime category, Table 4 demon-

strates that re-offense rates observed earlier in Table 3 do not change for different

offender groups. While the magnitude varies somewhat across crime type, STP

youth still generally have higher re-offense rates compared to probationers dis-

posed on similar offenses.

Table 4

2 Year Recidivism Rates Among Juveniles in Georgia's Short Term Program and Probation by Presenting Crime

Includes Delinquent Referrals with Disposition Dates Between Jan. 1, 2000 & Sep. 30, 2001. Follow-up period Sep. 30, 2001 - Sep. 30, 2003.

Crime Against Person Property Drugs Other

Recidivism Measure

STP Probation STP Probation STP Probation STP Probation

New Delinquency Referral or

Adult Arrest 57% 45% 63% 51% 49% 45% 67% 56%

New Delinquency Referral

40% 36% 44% 39% 29% 32% 47% 43%

Fe lo ny

20% 18% 28% 21% 19% 14% 26% 22%

Misd e me ano r

18% 13% 12% 13% 6% 11% 16% 14%

Unkno wn

2% 5% 4% 5% 4% 7% 5% 7%

New Short Term Program for

Delinquency 9% 7% 13% 10% 10% 7% 15% 10%

Fe lo ny

5% 4% 8% 5% 6% 3% 7% 5%

Misd e me ano r

3% 2% 4% 4% 4% 3% 6% 4%

Unkno wn

0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 2%

Data Sources: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Juvenile Tracking System (JTS); Juvenile Court Activity Tracking System (JCAT), Georgia Independent

Juvenile Courts.

Page 9

To take this line of inquiry one step further, Table 5 examines re-offense rates

among youth with different prior juvenile histories, an important factor to judges in

deciding whether a youth receives a probation or custodial sanctions. The column

labeled None represents juveniles with no known prior juvenile dispositions (it is

possible the juvenile has numerous referrals, but no delinquent adjudications and

dispositions). Among youth with no prior dispositions, 58% of the STP cohort has a

new delinquent referral or adult arrest compared to 44% of the probationers a

14% difference. This difference diminishes when examining youth with one, two, or

three or more prior dispositions. For juveniles with multiple prior dispositions, there

is no observed difference in re-offense rates between the STP and probationer

cohorts.

Table 5.

2 Year Recidivism Rates Among Juveniles in Georgia's Short Term Program and Probation by Prior Record: Juvenile Dispositions Prior to

Delinquent Referral That Resuled in STP or Probation Placement

Includes Delinquent Referrals with Disposition Dates Between Jan. 1, 2000 & Sep. 30, 2001. Follow-up period Sep. 30, 2001 - Sep. 30, 2003.

Number of Prior Juvenile Dispositions

None One Two Three or More

Recidivism Measure

STP Probation STP Probation STP Probation STP Probation

New Delinquency Referral or

Adult Arrest 58% 44% 61% 60% 67% 67% 71% 68%

New Delinquency Referral

43% 34% 42% 46% 47% 51% 43% 52%

Fe lo ny

24% 17% 23% 24% 29% 27% 26% 29%

Misd e me ano r

16% 13% 12% 15% 12% 15% 12% 14%

Unkno wn

3% 5% 6% 7% 3% 8% 5% 8%

New Short Term Program for

Delinquency 13% 7% 12% 12% 15% 12% 12% 11%

Fe lo ny

7% 4% 7% 6% 7% 6% 7% 6%

Misd e me ano r

5% 3% 4% 4% 7% 4% 3% 4%

Unkno wn

1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 2% 2% 2%

Data Sources: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Juvenile Tracking System (JTS); Juvenile Court Activity Tracking System (JCAT), Georgia Independent

Juvenile Courts.

Page 10

This study examined nearly 19,000 youth ordered to serve time in an STP facility or

placed on probation between January 1, 2000 and September 30, 2001. Using auto-

mated juvenile records and GCIC rap sheets, all youth were tracked for a 24-month

period on 16 outcome measures. These youths were also profiled according to

presenting offense and known prior juvenile history. In almost every instance in

which STP juveniles and probationers were compared, there is no evidence, based

on the available data, that STP participants had a lower re-offense rate during the 2-

year follow-up period. In fact, even among juveniles who have no known prior

dispositions, STP juveniles actually had a higher referral and re-arrest rate. If STP

does lead to improved outcomes for some juveniles, additional analysis is needed to

identify these juvenile subpopulations.

Page 11

Contact this candidate