ASSOCIATION FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE RESEARCH (CALIFORNIA)

SCHEDULE AND NOTES

67^th SEMI-ANNUAL MEETING

MARCH 13-14, 2008 

What follows immediately below is the final conference schedule of reports, panels, and presentations. Stars (**) indicate links to PowerPoint presentations.  This schedule is followed by the set of extensive notes taken by Mike Stefanko, Ph.D. 

Go directly to the Notes

PowerPoint Presentations

 

Program Chair: Jim Lindburg, Legislative Director, Friends Committee on Legislation

            Co-Chair: Robert Cushman, Consultant 

THURSDAY, MARCH 13^TH 

President’s Welcome: Frances Coles, President, ACJR(CA), Professor Emeritus, CSU San Bernardino

Keynote Address: John Irwin, Professor Emeritus, San Francisco State University, “Unlocking America: Why and How to Reduce America’s Prison Population”

Panel #1: The Future of Youth Corrections in California

Chair: Norman Skonovd, Research Specialist, Office of Research, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR)

Marcus Nieto, Senior Policy Researcher, California Research Bureau; “The Impact of Realignment on California County Camps and Ranches”

Jesse Janetta, Research Specialist, Center for Evidence-Based Corrections, UC Irvine; “The Role of the California Youth Authority in California Corrections”

Rudy Haapanen, Chief of Research, Juvenile Justice Branch, CDCR; “The Anticipated Impact of Realignment on the DJJ Population”

 Luncheon: Presentation by the American Justice Institute of the Richard A. McGee Award
to Susan Turner

 Panel #2: Law Enforcement Looks to the Future

Chair: Robert Cushman, Consultant

**Mike Harden, Assistant Chief of Police, Modesto Police Department; “Impact of Pandemic Events on the Workforce”

James Henchey, Captain, Alhambra Police Department; “Recruiting and Retaining the Millennium Generation Workforce” 

Panel #3: New Paradigms in Public Safety: Innovative Strategies for Gang Intervention

Chair: Lydia Hollie, Chair, Long Beach Youth and Gang Violence Prevention Taskforce;
            **”Selected New Paradigms Panel Questions”

Jason Ziedenberg, Co-Founder and Former Executive Director, Justice Policy Institute, Washington, D.C.; “Challenges to Comprehensive Gang Enforcement Policies”

**Charles Beck, Deputy Chief and Chief of Detectives, Los Angeles Police Department: “Transforming Gang Policing Strategies with 21^st Century Leadership”

Paul Seave, State Director of Gang and Youth Violence Policy; “An Effective Statewide Approach to Reducing Gang and Youth Violence”                                                            

 

FRIDAY, MARCH 14^TH 

President’s Report: Frances Coles

Panel #4: Mental Health Needs and Program Strategies for Juvenile Offenders and At Risk Youth

Chair: Amanda Noble, Research Specialist, Governor’s Office of Gang and Youth Violence Policy

Rudy Haapanen, Chief of Research, Juvenile Justice Branch, CDCR;
and
Diana Tracy, Department of Psychiatry, UC Davis;
“Mental Health Problems Among Juvenile Offenders in DJJ Facilities”

Ahmed Baameur, Deputy Probation Officer, Kern County, Early Intervention Program;
“Teaching Pro-Social Skills and Strengthening Families: Early Intervention Using Evidence-Based Models”

Charlene Wear-Simmons, Assistant Director, California Research Bureau, California State Library; “Meeting the Mental Health Care Needs of Youth in the Juvenile Justice and Foster Care Systems: A
Youth Perspective” 

Panel #5: Research in the California Courts at the State and Local Levels

Chairs: Judge Tomar Mason, Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, and Sandy Hilger, Director, Planning and Research, Superior Court of California, Orange County

**Don Will, Supervising Research Analyst, California Administrative Office of the Courts, Center for Families, Children and the Courts;
“An Historical View of Court Performance Measures”

**Iona Mara-Drita, Senior Research Analyst, California Administrative Office of the Courts; “Findings from the Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment Project”

See: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/cfcc/pdffiles/JDCA2008CombinedV1V2.pdf

**Leah Rose-Goodwin, Research Analyst, California Administrative Office of the Courts;
“Evaluation of Batterer Intervention Programs in California: the Role of the Court, Probation, and Intervention Programs”

**Sandy Hilger, Director, Planning and Research, Superior Court of California, Orange County; “Court Research Needs and Interests at the Local Level” 

CONFERENCE NOTES Top Menu   

The following notes were taken by Mike Stefanko, Ph.D. of the presentations made at the 67^th semi-annual meeting of the Association for Criminal Justice Research (California).  These notes, while as complete as possible, reflect the themes and points that most attracted Mike’s attention during the presentations. Your comments on other items that interested you in the talks are welcomed and will be added to these notes.  Send them to mstefanko70@gmail.com (please clearly specify the presentation). 

Keynote Address: John Irwin, Professor Emeritus, San Francisco State University, “Unlocking America: Why and How to Reduce America’s Prison Population”

For John, the current mood on what is happening to us regarding prisons is analogous to the movie “Sicko.”  More and more people (in this case, prisoners) are getting fewer and fewer services, at higher and higher costs.  In 1970 there were around 200,000 persons in prison.  By 2006, this number had increased to over 1,500,000. In addition, there are more than 27,000 lifers who are getting older and are, on average serving more time.  In the 1960’s, the average term served for someone with a sentence including “life” was 13 years.  Now it is 25 years.  By 2010, over one-third of lifers will be over 50 and the costs of medical care will be substantial.   

Many persons recognized the need for reform, and a push began around 2004.  Researchers knew that in many instances supposed reforms have been counter-productive because they were not based on evidence or research.  An expert panel looked at the issue of rising and aging prison populations and concluded that serious reform begins with improved assessment tools.  However, there are several myths that need to be recognized.  First, even the best assessment tools cannot identify all the true career criminals.  Second, increasing incarceration does not lead to decreased crime rates; if conditions and opportunities are not changed, others take the place of those removed from the streets. Third, increasing rehabilitation efforts does not reduce prison populations; rehabilitation programs not based upon evidence or not evaluated for effectiveness will not significantly change recidivism. 

The expert panel came up with the following recommendations for reducing prison populations:

Many of those we lock up are mentally ill.  We no longer house them in mental institutions, but do not provide the services they need anywhere else.  Locking them up does nothing to help them with their illnesses and is expensive.  John feels that we need to learn to just live with them in our midst, and to provide for their needs in ways other than prison. 

Next John discussed the humanizing of prisons.  He noted that prison reformers have, over the past few decades, led to the elimination of the more blatant forms of cruel and unusual punishments and treatments.  However, there is still more subtle but still powerful forms of cruelty.  Many of these revolve around widening the gap between guards and prisoners and increasing the level of animosity.  For example, some guards prevent prisoners from accessing their prescription medications.  John mentioned times when prisoners are kept in the exercise yard while guards threw out all personal belongings in their cells, including medications and legal papers. 

Another issue is that of prisoner safety.  While the number of stabbings has fallen, the increased overcrowding will inevitably lead to increased violence.  Everyone recognizes that the solution is to create smaller living units, but there is no money or will to do so. 

Finally, there is widespread recognition of problems in re-entry to society, but there is little research to determine which processes are effective, which are not effective, and which are actually harmful or destructive.  What is needed is funding for a study to follow a large enough cohort of released prisoners for a long enough period of time to determine those things that have a significant positive effect. 

PANEL #1: THE FUTURE OF YOUTH CORRECTIONS IN CALIFORNIA  

The Chair of the first panel, Norman Skonovd, Research Specialist, Office of Research, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), began by describing four eras in juvenile justice in California.  The first era, from 1850 to about 1900, was that of training schools.  Around 1900, juvenile court was developed and was the focus of juvenile justice until about 1941.  In 1941, the first California Youth Authority facility was built and the era of CYA began.  This era lasted until around 2004.  At that time the CYA was consolidated into the Department of Corrections (now called the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, or CDCR) and the population of the former CYA facilities, already on the downturn, began to be dramatically reduced.                               

The first presenter was Marcus Nieto, a Senior Policy Researcher with the California Research Bureau, who spoke on the impact of this realignment of juvenile justice on county camps and ranches. Determining the complete impact is a work in progress.  The population of camps and ranches was first affected by a 1997 law that charged counties for sending youths to CYA based upon the nature of the crimes for which they were found guilty.  This encouraged counties to keep youths within their own systems.  The juvenile court judges also began sentencing fewer youth to CYA commitments, especially first time offenders.  When these factors are combined with the decline in arrest rates of juveniles, the triple downward effect has been very powerful. 

Counties now will assume control of non-707b offenders and parolees.  They will need a range of sanctions which will include the use of juvenile halls as long-term instead of short-term housing options.  Halls had been at about 97% of capacity before several counties did additional building.  Capacity constraints will remain an issue for many counties.  More importantly, many services will not be available at the county level, particularly in counties with small populations.  One group expected to be negatively impacted consists of youth with various mental illnesses.  Juvenile halls may become de facto youth mental health facilities. 

Another group that concerns observers consists of the older, more sophisticated juvenile offender.  They would need special services beyond those normally given to juveniles, but different from services for adults.  Once again, smaller counties would be expected to find it difficult to provide these services.  Some money has been made available for counties, but while there is a statewide plan, there is no statewide oversight structure to see that counties are using the funds to meet the needs. 

The second presenter was Jesse Janetta, a Research Specialist at the Center for Evidence-Based Corrections located at UC Irvine.  Jesse addressed the role of the California Youth Authority within corrections.  He defined this role as the “middle deep end” of the continuum of sanctions.  He explained it being the “deep end” by citing the statistics that for every 1000 juveniles arrested, just 78 are sentenced to some type of confinement and just three go to a CYA facility with one other going to state prison.  As the substitute for the harsher conditions of prison, with more focus on rehabilitation, CYA becomes the “middle” part of the “deep end” of sanctions. 

The numbers of juveniles in CYA facilities have dropped dramatically, as noted by Marcus Nieto.  In 1996 there were about 10,000 youths in CYA facilities.  In 2005 that number had dropped to 3,348.  By the end of 2007 the (as yet unofficial) count was around 2,200.  Since there are around 177,000 adults in state prisons, the new Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) is just a very small piece of CDCR. 

While there also has been a decline in the rate of commitments, again as Marcus noted, the rate varies quite a bit from region to region.  Los Angeles County has a lower than average rate, while the rate for Northern California (north of the Bay Area) is higher than average.  Smaller counties send proportionally more youth the CYA facilities and send a higher percentage of youths guilty of non-violent offenses. 

Los Angeles County, even with its lower rate, still sends three times the number of any other county.  The proportions of offenders guilty of violent crimes, sex offenses and identified as gang members are also higher than other counties. About three-fourths of committed youths are gang members. 

California has a lower proportion of youth offenders being sent to state facilities than all other benchmark states.  The ratio in California is 35% to state facilities and 65% at the local level.  The next lowest state, Florida, has 55% at the state level and 45% local. 

Counties have moved to add capacity at the local level.  In 1999, local facilities were pretty much at 100% of capacity, but by 2005 the level had dropped to 80%.  Of course this varies from county to county and with seasonal variations and other factors, many facilities reach 100% of capacity at some point in the year.  In addition to assessing capacity issues, the Master Plan developed by the Juvenile Justice Commission includes requirements for local officials to produce plans that include standardized assessment tools and data collection elements. 

The third presenter was Rudy Haapanen, the Chief of Research of the Juvenile Justice Branch of CDCR.  He spoke on his perspective of the impact of realignment on the population at DJJ facilities. Rudy went even farther back into the changes in CYA than the first two presenters.  We stopped incarcerating status offenders in the 1960’s.  In the 1980’s and 1990’s the number of admissions were relatively stable, but the length of stay increased substantially, increasing capacity.  This first led to a change in the number of juveniles sent to prison instead of CYA, which was then reversed.  By the mid-1990’s capacity had risen to 160% of policy.  A sliding scale of fees to counties, as previously mentioned, was then implemented.  By 2007 the population was restricted to violent and sex offenders.  This has led to further increases in the average length of stay. 

Counties wish to retain control over the disposition of juveniles if they have the resources.  The limiting of choices may have the unintended consequence of sending more juveniles to prison instead of DJJ facilities if the juvenile cannot be handled at the local level.  For example, juveniles with a primary commitment offense of burglary are no longer accepted into DJJ facilities, yet about 65% of these juveniles have a violent offense as part of their commitment. 

Another change is that by increasing the ratio of those with sex offenders, there is an increased need for special housing for those juveniles.  Rudy noted that by changing the cut points on the assessment tool by one, there is a better separation of categories.  One other aspect of the studies of changing populations is the fact that those with fewer priors do better and are less likely to recidivate.  Many of these issues will be addressed in the first report of the Juvenile Justice Commission whose first report is due May 1^st.  This report will focus on outcomes, not processes. 

PANEL #2: LAW ENFORCEMENT LOOKS TO THE FUTURE  

The chair of this panel, Bob Cushman, opened the session with a description of POST, a training process for law enforcement.  These training opportunities are voluntary and incentive-based and are funded through fines.  The focus of his remarks was on the part of POST called the Law Enforcement Command College. The College is designed to prepare law enforcement leaders.  Emerging issues are identified and different scenarios and responses are evaluated in different College sessions.  Some of the sessions address criminal justice issues in general.  The discussions are based on data and evidence-based research.  The two panel presenters completed different college classes.  As part of their work they were required to pick a topic and prepare a report on that topic, including responses to the issues involved. Their presentations were on the topics they selected to complete their College requirement. 

The first presenter was Mike Harden, currently the Assistant Chief of Police for the Modesto Police Department.  His College topic was the impact of a pandemic event on a workforce.  Mike began with some comments about crisis leadership and the POST list of the role of the police officer.  One item not on the list, but affecting all workers, is the risk of self-exposure in a crisis situation.  All workers will evaluate their risk and take action accordingly, whether this is hiding from a gunman randomly shooting at people, evacuating an area after the spilling of a hazardous substance, or avoiding public contact as a pandemic disease spreads throughout a population.  Police officers have roles that force them to contradict these natural responses. 

Crises confronting police can be classified as three basic types: natural disaster, terrorist attack, and pandemics.  Of the three, governments and agencies are least familiar with the aspects of pandemics and far less prepared to deal with them than with disasters and attacks.  While there are some similar issues with all three, pandemics contain unique elements that need to be considered if agencies like police departments are to be fully prepared. 

Mike began his study by identifying what experts say are trends impacting employees.  Some of the most important trends include: the media’s tendency to sensationalize stories, the lack of knowledge of most persons regarding pandemics, the failure to prepare our families for crises in general and especially for pandemics, the differing effects on different generations of employees, the lack of resources available in a pandemic situation, unknown rules of engagement, and an inability among responders to communicate.  Mike further explained the “lack of available resources” by noting that most crisis situations, like disasters or attacks, are confined to an area, so that resources from outside that area can be brought in.  However, a pandemic is likely to affect a very large area, so that mutual aid is unlikely for quite some time.  Mike also noted that many persons assume that communications between police agencies and between police and fire departments and so on have been dramatically improved since 9/11.  For the most part, this is still not true – agencies have lacked the resources to purchase new equipment that would permit inter-communication. 

The conclusion of Mike’s study is that agencies need to develop a leadership plan that includes the pandemic scenario as one possibility.  A key aspect of this plan would be to create a position of “pandemic czar” who would see that the special impacts of a pandemic on the workforce are addressed.  This person would coordinate the responses to the pandemic.  Another aspect of the plan would be to conduct “table top” exercises with a focus on “gap analysis,” studying where there are likely to be gaps in the ability to respond and determining how to fill these gaps.

One of the suggestions Mike makes is for agencies or communities to increase the knowledge of the public by staging a “Preparedness Day.”  Ideally, a corporate sponsor (or sponsors) can be found to promote the day and assist in providing informational materials and even personal protective equipment at low cost. Finally, agencies need to work on the communication issues, including the development of fact sheets for employees and response orders (police are required to obey orders from their superiors).  Mike hopes that his study will lead agencies into discussions of these issues and for “pandemic crisis” to be added to the kinds of crisis situations for which police departments are prepared to address. 

The second presentation was by James Henchey, a Captain with the Alhambra Police Department.  His study focused on how different generations approach work and what this means for recruiting and retaining employees. James began by focusing our attention to the fact that some sociologists have attempted to define the characteristics of different generations. 

These generational profiles are not meant to describe all individuals, but do give a picture of the prototypical person within the generation.  These prototypes can help us understand the different marketing strategies that may be necessary to have the most success at recruiting members of a generation to your particular work environment;, in Mike’s report this was the hierarchical, structured, public service environment of a police department.  Once hired, understanding the goals and aspirations typical of the generation will assist in developing organizational structures and systems most likely to retain those members.  In addition to understanding the different generations making up a workforce, this perspective also can help us understand our parents, peers, children and grandchildren. 

First James defined a generation as a cohort group that shared attitudes and characteristics.  The sociologists who formed the focus of James’ study have identified nineteen generations on U.S. soil.  Four of these are considered colonial generations, born overseas, and focused on developing the new land.  The first generation that was primarily native born consists of those born between 1701 and 1723.  This generation saw the birth of the nation.  In studying the subsequent generations, the sociologists saw a cyclical pattern in the Archetypes of the generations.  They labeled these: Hero, Artist, Prophet and Nomad. 

The recent generations were labeled the G.I. generation, the Silent Generation, the Baby Boom generation, and Generation X (or the 13^th Generation).  The latest generation coming into the workforce is labeled the Millennial Generation and it consists of those born between 1982 and 2002.  The most recent births are forming a new generation too recent to be described or named.  The G.I. generation has 63 million members and a Hero archetype.  The Silent generation has 49 million members and an Artist archetype.  The Boomer generation has a Prophet archetype and 79 million members, while Generation X has 93 million members and a Nomad archetype.  The Millennial generation would have a Hero archetype and currently has 105 million members. 

The Baby Boom generation was primarily raised at home, but under changing conditions.  They did not experience war, but through increasing media (especially television) were made aware of many worsening trends: increased crime, drunk driving and unwed mothers, and decreasing SAT scores, for example.  While individual incomes declined, family income rose as more and more women went to work and families became dependent on two incomes.  The media highlighted a sexual revolution, but most of the effect of this revolution was on females, from improved pay and job opportunities, to controlling reproduction and the number of children.  Television also helped Boomers view consumerism and its focus on “Me.”  The parents of Boomers, mostly members of the Silent Generation had been so restricted by the Depression and World War II that they eased up restrictions on their children.  Decreased presence of mothers, fewer restrictions, and a shift in focus from family to career were the defining developmental characteristics of the Boomer generation. 

Generation X came along at the time of the Vietnam War, Watergate, and increased cynicism towards government, as well as high levels of divorce and abortion.  Many Gen Xers were “latchkey kids,” left unsupervised in the afternoons, increasing the power of the Nomad archetype.  Gen Xers came to prefer military service to public service.  A large number of males continued to live with their parents after high school (about 75% of 18-24 year olds).  The sacrifice of family to career by their Boomer parents led to increased focus on life success over career success.  The above-mentioned negatives led to a high level of skepticism toward other generations.  Growing up without much authority, Gen Xers frequently question it.  As technology, particularly computer technology, improved and became widespread, Gen Xers became adept at managing information via technology to the detriment of interpersonal skills. In the workplace, Gen Xers sought work schedules that matched their personal needs and had low loyalty to employers.  The insecurities that developed from the above phenomena led to “know it all” attitudes that combined with the questioning of authority to make hierarchical employee development difficult. 

Now Millennials are entering the workforce in greater numbers. This generation grew up in smaller families with increased attention to the children and increased parental structure.  Rates of divorce, abortion, and violent crime all began to decline. They have seen that, in general, work leads to rewards.  They have never been without computers in their lives, and these computers are now much more interactive.  This generation has used computers more to develop on-line relationships and less for personal amusement.  They tend to be more tolerant of differences, confident of their futures (perhaps unrealistically so), have high self-esteem, and wish to contribute to society (including a spirit of volunteerism).  However, they have come to expect rewards for effort rather than accomplishment and have difficulty accepting and applying constructive criticism (not being able to distinguish constructive criticism for destructive criticism).  While anti-bureaucratic, they accept structure and even welcome it. They desire to maintain strong family ties. 

Remembering that these are archetypical characterizations and that some members of each generation will have characteristics resembling other generations, one discovers that archetypical Boomers have characteristics that would make them effective mentors for Millennials (once again, this is a generalization and not every individual Boomer-Millennial mentoring relationship will be effective).  Another conclusion to draw form generational study is that job marketing needs to have a cohort component.  Most hiring processes are too bureaucratic for Millennials, who are looking for “teamwork” aspects and definitions of the “meaningfulness” of the work.  Millennials also seem to be adding a fifth developmental period to the childhood-adolescence-adulthood-maturity periods.  This additional period can be termed “emerging adulthood” and lasts roughly from 18 to 26. While Millennials in this age group are considered adults and are mostly “on their own,” a lack of life skills and “real world” experiences keeps them dependent on the adults in their lives (parents, authority figures, older co-workers, etc.) to get them through situations they are encountering for the first time.  Financial changes, especially high college loan debt and credit card debt, as well as negative social changes regarding relationships and jobs also contribute to this dependency (continuing to live with parents or moving back in).  Colleges have begun adding “Life 101” courses to meet some of these needs. 

In order to retain Millennials in the workplace, the environment must have challenging work tasks with variety, understanding bosses willing to allow some flexibility, and mentoring with constant feedback.  Mentors need to be respectful and have a sense of humor.  Bosses need to set clear expectations and standards.  Gen Xers, on the other hand, benefit more from “hands off” coaching from peers rather than authority figures.  They need to be encouraged to display initiative, with feedback that demonstrates that the employer is committed to assisting them.  With Millenials, employers need to identify leaders early on and develop ethical standards, training expectations, and promotional paths.

Employers need to remember that the above pictures focus on archetypes and not individuals.  They also need to recognize that cohorts represent different aspects of a cycle and that linear thinking is a threat to recruitment, development and retention.  They need to be aware of media portrayals, cynicism, and the failure of the organization to prepared new leaders and to highlight differing cohort and individual aspects.   

 PANEL #3: NEW PARADIGMS IN PUBLIC SAFETY: INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES FOR GANG INTERVENTION   

This panel was chaired by Lydia Hollie, Chair of the Long Beach Youth and Gang Violence Prevention Taskforce.   Lydia began by noting that the presenters on this panel could be thought of, in one sense, as presenting the past, the present and the future of policies to reduce gang violence. 

The first presenter was Jason Ziendenberg, the Co-Founder and Former Executive Director of the Justice Policy Institute in Washington, D.C.  Jason was addressing the challenges to comprehensive gang enforcement policies.  Jason began by describing how legislation regarding approaches to super-predators was based upon research done by just two criminologists, research that was subsequently discredited, but still was used by policymakers to generate publicly popular legislation.   

In addition, some policymakers have compared gang wars to terrorist attacks (al-Queda) and created legislation accordingly.  Two facts from these policies have emerged.  First, they are directed almost entirely at Latinos and blacks, even though research shows that there are a substantial number of white gangs.  The second fact is that after all the emphasis on incarcerating gang members, particularly leaders and shooters, there is still a serious and extensive gang problem, proof that we cannot incarcerate our way out of it. Part of the problem with current studies is that many of them are focused on law enforcement surveys – the agencies define the problems in their terms and from their perspectives.  For example, law enforcement surveys show 90% of gang members are minorities, while other research show extensive and even majorities of whites in some areas.  Law enforcement surveys indicate that 10% of gang members are female, while other research indicates that the percentage of female gang members is closer to 30%.  Since the non-law enforcement numbers are matched by studies done in Europe, the 10% figures seem too extreme.  

Jason explained that his research has shown that most gang members leave the gang within a year, and with little or no intervention.  Once in a gang, they find that the gang does not supply the answers to their needs, but instead it embroils them in violence.  Most members leave because they find too much violence in the gang or because they mature and/or find jobs. In addition, it should be noted that quite a large number of youths outside of gangs commit violent acts before adolescence. For black gang members, research show that jobs and mentors are the keys to helping them desist from gang involvement.  Another important research finding is that fear of arrest or incarceration is NOT a reason most youths leave gangs. 

Another “NOT” is that the beating they get in order to be considered out of the gang – being “jumped out” - is more myth than reality.  The biggest problem to overcome for former gang members is the labeling that continues to follow them when they try to rejoin mainstream society.  Jason suggests that law enforcement needs to respond to gang violence, not just to gang membership per se.

Jason finished with three suggestions:

The second presenter was Paul Seave, the State Director of Gang and Youth Violence Policy for the past five months.  Paul began by citing the change that occurred in gang violence about twenty years ago; a change in lethality.  When gang homicides rose to 13,000 per year, people felt terrorized and in many neighborhoods residents lived in fear of gangs.  One response has been the Safe Passages program, a program to ensure that students can get home from school safely. 

Other statistics Paul cited concern differences between counties.  In Los Angeles County in 1981, 10% of all homicides were labeled “gang-related,” while for the rest of the state just 4% were so labeled.  By 2001, the percentage for Los Angeles County had risen to 50% and to 17% for the rest of the state.  So while other forms of homicide have subsided, gang-related homicide has continued, with proportional increases across the state.  The problem remains much larger in Los Angeles County than elsewhere.  Part of the reason is that even the smallest slights between members of rival gangs are met with increased retaliation until deaths occur.  Paul cited one attack in Salinas that led to 19 shooting incidents in the following days 

Paul stated that the problem is best addressed at the local level, for local law enforcement knows which gangs were likely to be involved in an attacks and how and where retaliations are most likely.  The best approach is a comprehensive one, a plan containing prevention, intervention, education, and job training and placement.  Holding gangs and gang leaders accountable is a key.  Another key is figuring out how to restore communities and empower community members.  We are devoting vast sums of money, billions of dollars, toward reducing youth violence.  We need to start inventorying how the money is spent and using evidence-based research to determine program effectiveness. 

The third presenter was Charles Beck, a Deputy Chief and Chief of Detectives with the Los Angeles Police Department. Deputy Chief Beck addressed the transformation occurring in gang policing strategies from his perspective of 31 years in gang work.  He was a gang officer in Watts, and noted that Los Angeles Police Department’s South Bureau is considered the home of gangs in the United States, being reported since the 1930’s.  The Bloods, Crips, MS13 and 18^th Street gangs all began there and have spread to a reported 42 states. The influx of drugs, both use and sales, has escalated the violence levels between gangs and between gang members and other criminals.  He referred people to his PowerPoint presentation for more detailed information (some of which is incorporated in these notes). 

Over the years the criteria for determining who is a gang member has been more clearly defined and applied.  There is a database of those meeting the criteria.  There are about 470 identified gangs in the City of Los Angeles, with about 40,000 identified members.  The County numbers are over 1,250 gangs with more than 81,000 members.  Through the efforts of the LAPD, gang homicides have been reduced from around 1,000 in 1992 to about 400 last year.  This is still a big number as far as the police are concerned.  There was a big reduction in homicides in Watts.

There were a number of Police Department gang initiatives in 2007: patrol proliferation strategy, gang abatement legislation and implementation, community awareness symposia, media bulletins, and cooperative efforts between local, state and federal law enforcement agencies.  South Bureau contains 120 of LAPD’s most experienced homicide detectives and 14 officers and two supervisors in the Gang Suppression Unit.  There also is a Violent Crime Task Force which includes FBI and ATF officers, and a Special Crimes Unit that focuses on gang finances. 

What seems to have been most effective is the concept of “wrap around services.”  In this, the police are a big part of the solution, but only a part, and only if used properly.  The first element of this proper use is as partners: joining a city councilperson and staff, community relations persons, the Sheriff’s Department, and probation officers and parole agents.  In addition, the Housing Authority, Fire Department, residency advocacy councils, and school districts have important roles. 

A group like this met every Monday morning in the South Bureau to review incidents that had occurred in the past week, particularly the weekend, with an emphasis on determining what to do to stop the next shooting (rather than point fingers at why or how the last shooting occurred). Two key elements in this process of preventing the next incident are dedicated police officers and hard-core gang interventions.  Dedicated officers are ones desiring to work on developing relationships in these communities over time.  Hard-core gang interventions focus on the use of ex-gang members, getting them immediately on the scene of a shooting to determine the “who, what, and why” of the incident. 

Deputy Chief Beck’s slides also describe law enforcement-focused efforts, including the police proliferation strategy, the use of partner resources, the benefits from prison and jail information, and probation/parole resources. Efforts beyond law enforcement include understanding that approaches must address precursors such as domestic violence and negative parenting; that school failure is directly connected to gang involvement; that many youth are looking for alternatives to gangs, especially jobs, but that illiteracy is a major barrier to being trained in marketable skills.  All community programs need to emphasize integrity, discipline, self-esteem, and life skills, ad police officers must model these traits. 

PANEL #4: MENTAL HEALTH NEEDS AND PROGRAM STRATEGIES FOR JUVENILE OFFENDERS
AND AT RISK YOUTH                               

This panel was chaired by Amanda Noble, a Research Specialist with the Governor’s Office of Gang and Youth Violence Policy. Amanda briefly introduced the panelists and quickly started the presentations. 

The first presenter was Ahmed Baameur, a Deputy Probation Officer from Kern County, who is involved in their Early Intervention Program.  The program he was excited to share was one directed at teaching pro-social skills to at-risk youth.  The program was developed after several high profile violent acts occurred in Kern County.  Many stakeholders got together to identify the root causes for these acts.  Some of the causes that were identified included: family instability, poor parenting practices, intergenerational gang involvement, poverty, and lack of education.  There was also a substantial correlation with child abuse. 

For this identification process a three tiered model was developed.  The first tier was to determine the best practices that had worked in other locations and adapt them to the conditions in Kern County.  Included in these practices was: Aggression Replacement Therapy, The Strengthening Families Program (SFP), and the Parent Project – Loving Solutions.  The second tier was organizational development and support.  Included in this tier was staff training in the best practices models, identifying resources within organizations and developing program evaluation components.  The third tier consisted of collaborations.

There are multi-disciplinary teams, Family Resource Centers, Community Based Organizations, and School Districts.  These groups use assessment tools that include the Youth Level of Service case Management Inventory, the Strengthening Families Program pre and post-tests, school attendance and behavior records and delinquency tracking.  The Aggression Replacement Therapy is a 10 week, three hours per week program to learn to better control anger and impulsiveness.  The Strengthen Families Program is 14 weeks and develops parenting skills, children skills and practices these skills.  One of the unique aspects of this program is that it begins each week with a family meal.  The independent program evaluation looks at facilitator skills gap analyses and fidelity checks.  Attendance and dosage is tracked, focus groups are interviewed and outcomes are measured. 

The Early Intervention Program has four phases: 1) family stabilization; 2) program orientation; 3) intensive service delivery (4 months); and 4) transitional services including mentoring (3 months).  The initial results are very good; the recidivism rate is 13%. 

The second presenter was Charlene Wear-Simmons, the Assistant Director of the California Research Bureau of the California State Library.  Her presentation focused on a video made by youths that shared their perspectives on the juvenile justice and foster care systems.  Charlene set up the video by explaining that two common themes are abuse and learning disabilities.  Abuse is in all forms: physical, emotional and sexual.  Mental illness is also prevalent; about 42% of those in detention have detectable mental illnesses and, in a study of one county, about 40% of those in foster care placement in Orange County are also mentally ill, about ten times the rate in the general youth population. 

Often times the justice system gets those youths unable to be helped in other ways, but services within the system often fall short.  Youth get labeled and this label sticks with them, even though records are supposed to be confidential.  Naturally this leads to a lot of distrust by youths towards a system that promises confidentiality and fails to deliver, promises services and fails to deliver, and then does deliver the viewing “the file” by unauthorized persons, while also delivering lots of medication and labels. 

Charlene says some of the suggestions made by the youth include: let youth participate in setting goals and the agenda; provide mentors; address survival needs, especially as youth approach emancipation; emphasize the strengths of individuals, provide consistent and compassionate support; reduce the stigma of foster care; utilize informal settings; and ensure confidentiality.

The DVD then presented a couple of other important ideas.  Youths need long-term relationships with specific adults.  Medications need to make sense and need to be explained to youth.  Case workers need to make clear what information is confidential and what is not, so youths better understand what new persons should know.  The system needs to provide culturally positive environments.  Interventions need to cultivate personal interests, like sports, music or art; situations need to be fixed, like job preparation and life skills; good role models and good information are both important.  Youths need a voice, there are youth who would make good advocates. 

The third presentation was a shared presentation by Rudy Haapanen and Diana Tracy.  Rudy had already been introduced in an earlier presentation as the Chief of Research in the Juvenile Justice Branch of CDCR.  Diana is completing her medical degree in the Department of Psychiatry at UC Davis. Rudy began by describing some of the mental health issues in DJJ facilities. When populations and admissions were higher, personnel could not assess everyone.  Observations were used to determine who should be tested further. 

The main tests used were the MAYSI-2 and the DISC.  Diana then discussed these tests further.  They are self-reports of symptoms, so it was important to make observations as well.  The MAYSI was produced with a 5^th grade reading level, had 52 yes/no questions and only took about 10 to 15 minutes to complete.  It was used to screen those youth who seemed at risk and who might need further intervention.  There are seven axes: Alcohol/Drugs, Angry/Irritable, Depressed/Anxious, Somatic Complaints, Suicidal Ideation, Thought Disturbance and Traumatic Experiences.  One set of studies is looking at differences within population subsets. 

PANEL #5: RESEARCH IN THE CALIFORNIA COURTS AT THE STATE AND LOCAL LEVELS 

The panel was co-chaired by Judge Tomar Mason of the Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, and Sandy Hilger the Director of Planning and Research of the Superior Court of California, Orange County.  Tomar began by presenting an overview of research in the courts by noting that there were two basic issues: accountability and independence.  Both judges and court administrators both want better information so courts can be run more effectively and efficiently, they differ on what that information would be.  Judge Mason then introduced each panelist and asked a discussion question after each presentation. 

The first presenter was Don Will, a Supervising Research Analyst for the California Administrative Office of the Courts: the Center for Families, Children and the Courts. Don began with some historical observations, displaying some slides with pictures from the 1910’s and 20’s.  In 1919 the Children’s Bureau (as it was known then) discovered there were no statistics or other data being kept on the children that required state and local intervention.  The head of the Bureau at the time surveyed about 2300 courts and then organized a conference.  The conference was held in 1921 and developed a set of standards to be used in handling cases in three areas: delinquency, neglect, and “feeble-mindedness.”  Standards and stats were published through 1926, then nothing much happened for 80 years. 

In looking at data gathering, issues in the courts are pretty straightforward.  However welfare cases are much more complex, and it is much harder to determine performance measures and outcome goals in this area.  In 2006 the Judicial Council sought to develop and adopt performance measures for juvenile courts.  This effort began by attempting to develop uniform data collection systems. The standards being developed include those addressing the following issues: hearing timeliness, due process, safety, permanency, and “well-being” (particularly difficult to define).  In addition, data is sought on demographic characteristics and court processes.

Next Iona Mara-Drita discussed some of the findings from the Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment Project.  Iona is a Senior Research Analyst with the California Administrative Office of the Courts. The Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment Project was different from previous assessments in that it did not look at what happened before and after court, but rather it regarded the processes of the courts.  The study used multiple tools, including mail-in surveys, interviews, focus group discussions, and visits to facilities.  The surveys were sent to samples of court officers, attorneys, probation officers, youths and their families, victims and community members.  Thirty interviews, 26 focus group discussions, and visits to nine facilities in six counties occurred.

The areas of inquiry were kept broad.  Both calendar processes and hearing processes were regarded.  The quality of legal advocacy and of probation reports was investigated.  System responses, both in terms of services and sanctions were delineated, as were the treatment of users and court resource needs.  Data is still being compiled and analyzed.  A few of the preliminary findings include the following: long wait times are a significant barrier to participation – many cannot afford the financial loss such waiting involves, others find the wait times offensive.  Youth are rarely allowed to speak – many attorneys and advocates fear that what they say may get them into more trouble.  Hearings are hard for youths and their families and victims to comprehend – there is a large amount of technical language used, adding to the problem. 

Researchers found that these issues led to a large amount of distrust in the purpose of the hearings – many of the youth surveyed felt that the main purpose seemed to be to ensure the officers of the court kept their jobs.  Court officers and judges, on the other hand, felt that calendars were too packed to get through “to their satisfaction.”  However, holding cases over seemed to do more harm than good to the child. 

The report is due out April 25^th and can be viewed at: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/cfcc/pdffiles/JDCA2008CombinedV1V2.pdf 

The next presentation focused on an evaluation of batterer intervention systems.  The presenter was Leah Rose-Goodwin a Research Analyst with the California Administrative Office of the Courts. Her evaluation looked at courts, probation and Batterer Intervention Programs (BIP).  Profiles were gathered of 1500 subjects in five varied counties (large/small, urban/rural).  Most (but not all) batterers are heterosexual males whose victims are wives and girlfriends, so the evaluation focused on these.  Those profiled had been convicted of a domestic violence offense and enrolled in a BIP.  Data was gathered from the programs, as well as from probation, the courts, and the state Department of Justice. 

Over three-fourths of the batterers were non-whites with a high school education or less.  Interestingly, 38% of the victims were still living with the batterer, and there were children in about one-third of the homes.  The CAGE drug/alcohol assessment tool was administered and 46% scored zero, 33% scored a one or two, and 22% scored three or four.  There were significant differences in those leaving BIPs between counties.  Two of the counties saw about 50% terminate, while the other three counties had termination rates in the 30% range. Leah displayed a graph that showed a rising curve for the first ten weeks of programs, which then leveled off.  There were few terminations after 30 weeks. 

Leah is now looking at how the courts are acting towards program participants and dropouts.  There are large variations by program that also need further analysis. 

The fourth presentation in this panel was made by Sandy Hilger, the Director of Planning and Research for the Superior Court of California, Orange County.  While the other presenters focused on statewide programs, Sandy discussed the projects of the relatively new (18 months old) Planning and Research Unit of the Superior Court of Orange County.  The unit has seven analysts with various functions.  Orange County is the fifth largest (by population) county in the nation and has 109 judges and 1800 court staff personnel.  

While there are many resources, the 500,000 citations and 93,000 felony and misdemeanor cases each year stretch these resources quite thin.  So looking at issues impacting the calendar is a priority.  The Unit is not looking at the “under law” part, the part influenced by the state and federal constitutions and the legislature.  Rather, what is important at the local level is how well the courts are serving the public and administering justice.

In 2003 the National Center for State Courts performed a review of court management.  Key elements of the study showed that courts needed to make their management practices known, be held accountable and function with a business orientation.  These factors provide a rational way to prioritize services.  Some of the factors involved in evaluating the courts include: initial needs assessments, data integrity, report validation, unification of processes, program evaluations, resource allocations, and the prioritization of needs.  These are part of the research Sandy is developing and directing. 

Another Orange County focus is on strategic planning.  This includes seeking to expand resources through grants.  The planning needs to align with research on trends and program evaluations.  Some of the trends being investigated in Orange County include: population, access, specialty courts (such as drug court, DUI court, domestic violence court, homeless court), and technology.  Broader trends include changes in ethnic diversity, regionalism, level of political distrust and economic cycles.  These broader trends may be more applicable to statewide analysis.  Research also needs to take into account the goals for courts from the state level.

POWERPOINT PRESENTATIONS  Top Menu  

Spring Conference - March 2008 - Sacramento
RINTEGRATION AND INNOVATION IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE RESEARCH
Mike Harden	Impact of Pandemic Events on the Workforce	ppt
lydia Hollie	Gang Violence Prevention - Selected New Paradigms Panel Questions	ppt
Charles Beck	Transforming Gang Policing Stratigies with 21st. Century Leadership	ppt
Don Will	An Historical View of Court Performance Measures	ppt
Iona maria-Drita	Findings from the Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment Project	ppt
Leah Rose- Goodwin	Evaluationof Batterer Intervention Programs in California: the Role of the Court, Probation, and Intervention Programs	ppt
Sandy Hilger	Court research Needs and Interests at the Local Level	ppt
Top Menu