|
Evaluation Findings
As noted in table 1, the majority of DDAP clients were members of minority groups, with African American youth accounting for 56.1 percent of the sample, Asian and Hispanic youth accounting for 29.6 percent of the group, and Caucasian youth accounting for 12.7 percent of the group. Males accounted for 82.5 percent of the sample, and they tended to come from one of four adjoining neighborhoods in San Francisco: Excelsior/Visitacion, Haight-Ashbury, Mission, and Potrero Hill/Bayview Hunter. One-fourth of all DDAP clients originated from the adjacent neighborhoods of Potrero Hill and Bayview Hunter. Most DDAP clients lived with their mothers in single-parent households. The data also indicate that school was a problem for the DDAP group, as only 53.6 percent were attending school at the time they entered DDAP, and 24.1 percent of the youth had been either expelled or suspended. Drug use was common, as 53.5 percent of youth had ever used drugs, 46 percent had used drugs at least once during the 90 days prior to DDAP referral, and 32.9 percent used drugs on a daily basis. Marijuana was the most commonly used drug. Most DDAP clients were not employed, and just over 40 percent were living in poverty. It is significant that for the DDAP group alone, the one variable most strongly associated with recidivism is poverty. This last point is further underscored by the results of a 1990 study that focused on crack cocaine sales in the Bayview area of San Francisco (the area with the highest concentration of DDAP clients) (Bowser, Fullilove, and Fullilove, 1990). The 1990 study found that the heaviest concentration of crack cocaine sales occurred almost exclusively in the poorest housing projects of this community, where residents have been on the margin of the economy since the 1960's. The study also found that this mostly African American community "has been cut off from the city's economic life" (1990:57-63) as the prospects for good jobs have steadily shrunk. The rising rates of drug sales (especially crack) have occurred simultaneously with increases in the incidence of unprotected sex and in cases of sexually transmitted diseases (including AIDS). The study concluded that these problems were influenced by "long-term community economic conditions and opportunities" (1990:57-63). Youth see their parents and neighbors—and themselves—cut off from the surrounding community with little hope for the future. How DDAP Group Compares to Comparison Group
Most of the above differences—except for the number of prior referrals—might lead one to predict a slightly higher recidivism rate among the DDAP group (i.e., more males, higher risk scores, and more prior placements), yet the most significant finding of this study was that the DDAP group had a much lower recidivism rate. In fact, the overall recidivism rate for the comparison group was almost double that for the DDAP group (60 percent versus 34 percent). Moreover, there was a significant difference for the rate of serious recidivism (defined as subsequent referrals for major felonies). Further, the comparison group was more than three times more likely to have two or more subsequent referrals, almost three times more likely to be referred for a violent crime, about four times more likely to have two or more subsequent petitions, and slightly more likely to have subsequent placements. These relationships were statistically significant at the .001 level, except for gender differences (p<.05) and subsequent placements (not significant).2
Because many youth in the study turned 18 during the followup period, they had no subsequent referrals to juvenile court. Therefore, comparisons were made controlling for age as the primary reason that older youth had a lower recidivism rate. Tables 3 and 4 show that the comparisons between the two groups remained essentially the same: recidivism rates were still significantly higher for the comparison group.
Perhaps the most interesting finding presented in table 5 is that for youth for whom one would normally predict a low rate of recidivism (e.g., females and those with low risk scores, no previous referrals, no prior placements, and minor previous offenses), recidivism rates were higher among the comparison group. This finding was statistically significant for all variables except sex; however, for females the difference between the DDAP group and the comparison group was substantial. For three of the variables (including low risk score), the recidivism rate for the comparison group was double that of the DDAP group. This lends support to the theory that when a youth who has a low potential for further delinquency is detained in the juvenile justice system, the probability for future delinquency is exacerbated (Becker, 1963; Schwartz, 1989; Schur, 1971).
Although the preceding analysis measures recidivism in terms of any subsequent referral to juvenile court for new offenses, recidivism can be measured in many ways. Other measures include subsequent petitions to juvenile court, subsequent referrals to juvenile court for violent offenses, and subsequent placements outside the home. Subsequent petitions could be considered a much better measure of success or failure, because many referrals are never petitioned to court for more formal hearings. One could conclude that petitioned cases are the most serious or those with the most evidence and that cases not petitioned to court are not serious enough to warrant further court action or have little or no evidence.
Another possible measure of recidivism is subsequent referral to court on a charge of violence (see table 8). Once again, differences between the DDAP group and the comparison group surfaced. The differences were more dramatic for this measure than for subsequent petitions: the comparison group was almost three times more likely than the DDAP group to return to court on a charge of violence. Of youth age 14 and under, 34.8 percent had subsequent referrals for violent offenses, compared with only 12.2 percent of older youth. Differences between Caucasian and African American youth in the DDAP group and the comparison group were negligible, and rates for these two groups were significantly higher than those for other racial/ethnic groups. The greater the number of prior referrals and the more serious the prior referrals, the greater the likelihood of recidivism on a charge of violence.
A final measure of recidivism considered is subsequent out-of-home placements (see table 9). Although differences between the DDAP group and the comparison group were not statistically significant, the comparison group was slightly more likely to have subsequent placements. Subsequent placements were also more likely for younger youth and for youth with the most prior referrals, the most serious prior referrals, and prior placements.
| ||||
Because more detailed information was available via intake forms for all the youth handled by DDAP during 1994 (the first full year of operation, n=189), a summary of several sociodemographic variables from these cases (e.g., age, race/ethnicity, sex, and family structure) will be reviewed first.
Several significant differences were observed between the DDAP group sample and the comparison group sample
When comparisons were made controlling for additional variables (see table 5), DDAP clients had significantly lower recidivism rates than did the comparison group. For instance, among youth with high risk scores (10 or higher), the overall recidivism rate for DDAP clients was 32.8 percent, compared with 58.4 percent for the comparison group. Similar differences were found for those with low risk scores (under 10). The highest recidivism rates for the DDAP group (50.0 percent) were found among those with three or more referrals, considerably lower than the comparable rate for the comparison group (70.5 percent).
Table 6 breaks down these rates further, comparing recidivism rates by risk scores for the two groups. The rate for serious recidivists was consistently higher among the comparison group for most of the variables noted here. Thus, 44 percent of the high-risk comparison group were serious recidivists, compared with only 23 percent of the DDAP group. More critical was the finding that among low-risk groups only 13 percent of DDAP youth were serious recidivists, compared with 49 percent of the comparison group. In other words, not only was the recidivism rate consistently higher among the comparison group, but the youth from the comparison group who did return to the juvenile justice system were far more likely to return on a more serious charge, even when they were considered to be "low risk" (see tables 2-4).
When subsequent petitions are used as a measure of recidivism, as shown in table 7, the differences between the DDAP group and the comparison group remain significant. Only 23.6 percent of the DDAP group had at least one subsequent petition, compared with 47.8 percent of the comparison group. Recidivism rates were significantly higher among youth age 14 and under and among males who had three or more prior referrals or the most serious prior referrals. The variables of race/ethnicity, prior placements, and risk scores did not correlate with subsequent petitions.
