Summary of Findings and Recommendations

If recidivism is used as the key measure of success, it appears that youth referred to DDAP have been more successful than those not referred. Recidivism, however, can have different meanings and can be measured in different ways. Given the available data (and absent data such as self-esteem and school grades, which were not available for this study), at least three measures can be used: a referral to court on a new offense (which can be further broken down to focus on violent offenses), a referral that results in an actual petition to go before the judge for possible adjudication, and a referral that results in out-of-home placement (e.g., group homes and institutions). By each of these three measures, the DDAP group is decidedly more successful.

Youth characteristics that were controlled for in the recidivism comparisons between the DDAP group and the comparison group did not vary significantly between the two groups, which suggests that differences in recidivism rates may not be attributable to differences in group characteristics. In fact, the DDAP group had higher risk scores and more prior placements than the comparison group, which would lead one to predict that the DDAP group would have higher, rather than lower, recidivism rates.

All the data from this study suggest that risk scores themselves are relatively poor predictors of outcome. Because accuracy of the assessment forms cannot be verified, the study's conclusion about risk scores must be based on existing risk scores. Nevertheless, when one puts the accuracy of risk scores aside, the fact remains that DDAP accepted youth, who conventional wisdom might dictate were a threat to public safety and who would have sat in detention for days or even weeks, had recidivism rates that were nearly 50 percent less than the comparison group. This supports the proposition that intensive supervision over an extended period of time, coupled with placement in community-based programs, enabled DDAP youth to lead relatively normal lives, while reducing the likelihood of further contact with the juvenile justice system. How many of the DDAP or comparison group later become adult offenders is not known.

Several reasons are offered for DDAP's apparent success. First, the caseloads of DDAP caseworkers are low in comparison with the caseloads of juvenile justice court probation officers. DDAP caseworkers average about 10 cases each at any one time, compared with 50 to 100 for court probation officers in major urban areas. Smaller caseloads typically result in more intensive supervision, and more intensive supervision means that the caseworker can be "on top of things" with regard to clients. Indeed, with small caseloads, caseworkers can spend more quality time with their clients in the field rather than in an office processing paperwork, talking on the telephone, and performing other bureaucratic tasks.

Second, the DDAP program is "out of the mainstream" of the juvenile justice system—a true "alternative" program rather than one of many bureaucratic extensions of the system.³ Being out of the mainstream means that normal bureaucratic restrictions do not generally apply. For instance, the qualifications for being a caseworker with DDAP are not as strict as one might find within the juvenile justice system (e.g., age restrictions, educational requirements, absence of arrest records, and "street" experience—the caseworkers grew up in the same areas as did the clients). DDAP's caseworkers exhibited exceptional dedication to helping youth, and the backgrounds of DDAP workers were similar to the backgrounds of some of their clients (e.g., similar race/ethnicity, neighborhood of origin, and language).

Third, DDAP's physical location seemed more "user friendly" than the formal system (e.g., no bars, no concrete buildings, no devices for screening for weapons upon entering the building, and no cells for lockdown). Further, DDAP workers are not officers of the court, with powers of arrest and the usual accoutrements of such occupations (e.g., badges and guns).

A possible fourth explanation—drawn only from speculation because no relevant data are available—could be that because of DDAP's intensive supervision, caseworkers may be more likely to deflect potential problems. In addition, if a DDAP client is in a situation that could lead to arrest, a police officer may contact the DDAP caseworker, who may convince the officer that the situation could be handled without a formal arrest. If this scenario occurs with any degree of regularity, it may be a positive sign. Police often are willing to forego arrest if they believe that someone in authority is available to handle a youth informally. Usually, such youth are from more privileged backgrounds with ready access to adults willing to take responsibility for them. Many such youth have been saved the stigma of formal court processing through the intervention of significant adults in their lives. Perhaps DDAP caseworkers can perform that function for less privileged youth.

Recommendations for future research and programs include the following:

• Given the apparent success of DDAP, an overall expansion of the program seems warranted, especially for youth who have high risk scores or who otherwise would be predicted to be highly likely to engage in repetitive, serious delinquency. DDAP's findings support conclusions of other researchers in the matter of handling so-called dangerous youth within their own communities (e.g., Miller, 1996, 1998).

• Subsequent research should include indepth interviews of program participants and family members, DDAP caseworkers, and heads of agencies to whose programs DDAP clients were referred to get a clearer idea of why the program seemed to work and what services worked the best.

• Larger samples from both DDAP and comparison groups should be drawn and studied to try and replicate the findings.

• Youth in the sample group should be followed to their adult years to find out how many become adult offenders and how many subsequently are incarcerated in adult institutions.

• The factors that account for DDAP's apparent success should be examined. To what programs were nonrecidivists referred? What did their caseworkers do? In short, what did DDAP do on behalf of these youth that other programs did not do?

• A reassessment of the detention authority's existing risk assessment instrument seems warranted, with special attention to accuracy in filling out the instrument on referral to juvenile court. Subsequent research should address this problem, with emphasis on the predictive validity of the risk assessment instrument itself. Placing a youth in detention, or even referring a youth to the court system itself, is a serious step that can have far-reaching, often negative, consequences in that young person's life. A risk assessment instrument that uses a numerical scale, even if it is based on scientific research, should not passively be accepted as the last word. The assignment of a risk score (or any other objective numerical score) should not go unchallenged.

• DDAP should remain a true alternative agency to the formal juvenile justice system. The program should not become bureaucratized, co-opted, or otherwise influenced by existing bureaucracy. The best crime control is often conducted in the community without the participation of any formal bureaucratic system (Elias, 1993).

1. That is, DDAP is a separate agency with separate funding and employees, whereas bureaucratic extensions are special programs (e.g., intensive supervision) with funding by the juvenile court and supervision by regular probation officers.

Detention Diversion Advocacy: An Evaluation	Juvenile Justice Bulletin   ·  September 1999