Evaluating an Experimental Intensive Juvenile Probation Program: Supervision and Official Outcomes

Abstract

In 1996, California provided funding to 14 county probation agencies to implement multiagency, comprehensive services to keep troubled youths from recommitting crime and progressing farther into the justice system. We report results of a randomized experiment used to evaluate Ventura County’s 4-year demonstration project called the South Oxnard Challenge Project (SOCP). We followed youths for more than 2 years after random assignment to SOCP or routine probation. We found no significant differences between SOCP and routine juvenile probationers on recidivism or other official-record outcomes. Although most youths were rearrested, most did not receive a sustained petition or incarceration. The modest additional services did not affect outcomes.

Experimental Criminal Law. A Survey of Contributions from Law, Economics and Criminology

“…A special Californian program targeting juvenile offenders did not significantly reduce their recidivism (Lane, Turner et al 2005, Brank, Lane et al 2008, Farabee, Zhang et al 2014. Self-report data indicate that those in the program were even more likely to later commit violent crime (Lane, Turner et al 2007).…”

The effects of an experimental intensive juvenile probation program on self-reported delinquency and drug use

“…Because Ventura was serving youths, they used this responsibilities model as a guide for developing their own program, but they modified it to include the family of the minor as an important party in the transaction. The family's role was to provide love, support, and responsibility to each other (for a graphical representation of the model, see Lane et al 2005Lane et al , 2007.…”

“…Ventura County chose to implement the South Oxnard Challenge Project (SOCP) using Clear's "corrections of place" (COP) ideas to guide implementation (Clear 1996). By locating multiple agencies at one site in the heart of the community, the project staff, led by the probation agency, hoped to work together to provide services to juveniles on probation and their families to increase pro-social activities and improve their relationships with families and peers as a means to prevent youths from committing crime (see Karp et al 2002;Lane et al 2005Lane et al , 2007, for detailed description of the program).…”

“…There have been relatively few scholarly studies on the effects of juvenile probation, especially using rigorous evaluation techniques (see Altschuler 1998;Lane et al 2005;Krisberg et al 1989;National Research Council and Institute of Medicine 2001;Palmer 1992Palmer , 1994. This scarcity of research is problematic, because the majority (62% in 2002) of youths who are sanctioned by the court receive probation (Snyder and Sickmund 2006).…”

“…We have already reported the official records results, which indicated that there were no or few significant differences between SOCP youths and routine probationers in recidivism, restitution payment, probation and community service completion, and alcohol and other drug use at about 2 years after random assignment (Lane et al 2005). Official records, however, are only one way to measure recidivism and drug use.…”