The ACT Now Program

The Pima County Attorney’s Office (PCAO) in Arizona is among the many prosecutors’ offices nationwide that have recognized truancy as a significant problem and designed alternatives to adjudication by intervening with truants to prevent subsequent delinquent and criminal behavior.

Pima County, located in the southeastern portion of Arizona, is the second most populous county in the State, with an estimated population of more than 780,000 people. More than half of the population lives in Tucson, the county seat. Between 1991 and 1995, Pima County’s truancy rates were among the highest in the State, accounting for more than 50 percent of the State’s chronic truancies (Bernat, 1996). In addition to high truancy rates, Pima County’s juvenile arrest rates were higher than the State average (National Center for Juvenile Justice, 1996). Statistics also showed that in 1993, 8,720 juveniles were referred to the Juvenile Court Center, and between 1993 and 1996, the number of referrals increased approximately 23 percent, to 10,773. Since 1993, the most frequent type of referral (accounting for roughly one-quarter of all referrals) has been for status offenses, which include truancy.⁴

During 1993 and 1994, a statewide working group in Arizona focused attention on youth crime and developed recommendations for prevention and early intervention. To address truancy and youth crime, the group recommended approaches that focus on the root causes of poor school attendance, such as lack of parental control due to insufficient parenting skills, child abuse or neglect in the home, and family instability. The group also suggested that requiring parents to ensure that their children are supervised and holding parents accountable would increase school attendance and decrease juvenile crime. The working group’s recommendations resulted in an amendment to the State compulsory school attendance law to include criminal sanctions for parents or guardians who do not ensure that their children attend school.

To address key risk factors associated with youth crime—poor school attendance and truancy—one of the working group members, PCAO’s deputy county attorney, initiated the development of a PCAO truancy diversion program. Armed with the new law that strengthened the enforcement of the existing compulsory school attendance statute by creating criminal fines and penalties for parents, PCAO formulated its truancy plan to include three key elements:

• Enforcement of the mandatory attendance law by holding parents accountable.

• Provision of a diversion program that offers services to address the root causes of truancy.

• Sanctions for parents and youth for continued truancy or failure to complete the diversion program successfully.

Critical to the truancy program’s success would be the active participation of school districts, local schools, law enforcement offices, and community agencies, all of which have some responsibility for educating, providing services to, assisting, or intervening with youth.

Armed with a vision, a concrete plan, and printed materials, PCAO invited more than 100 key stakeholders to convene and discuss the problem of truancy. The traditional response to truancy in the county had been to process the youth through the juvenile court, which often resulted in diversion with no consequences. As a result, school administrators had lacked confidence in the process and welcomed the new law and the new strategy for addressing truancy. With the interest and support of school administrators, PCAO moved forward with its program for the 1994–95 school year. The program, Abolish Chronic Truancy (ACT) Now, became a cooperative effort among PCAO, the schools, law enforcement, and community organizations/agencies that provide services to youth and families.

During the initial stages, no community agency was available to partner with PCAO to provide case management or services to truant youth and their families. Thus, in the first program year, PCAO received referrals directly from schools and coordinated the diversion program. A community-based nonprofit agency, the Center for Juvenile Alternatives (CJA), was established in spring 1995 in Pima County to provide an alternative to the institutional detention of status offenders, to take on case management responsibilities for the ACT Now program, and to provide services as part of the program to youth and their families. During the latter half of 1995, CJA became firmly established, and ACT Now became a fully coordinated interagency response to truancy.⁵

As envisioned, ACT Now was to create and implement a sound, uniform enforcement plan that would not require significant investment of resources. The expressed purpose of the program was to return the habitually truant minor to school through the coordination and cooperation of participating schools, prosecution, law enforcement, and CJA. ACT Now is grounded in the philosophy that a breakdown in parental supervision has occurred, resulting in truancy, curfew violations, and juvenile involvement in a wide range of criminal and other unacceptable behaviors. The program design consists of several steps:

• Participating schools monitor attendance closely and, after the first unexcused absence, send a letter to parents advising them of the potential for prosecution.⁶ The letter states that the school is working in close cooperation with PCAO’s Truancy Enforcement Program and that if the youth has at least three unexcused absences, his or her attendance record will be forwarded to the program.
  
  
• After the third unexcused absence, a truancy referral form with identifying data and other background information, the youth’s official attendance record, and a notarized affidavit certifying the unexcused absences are sent to CJA.⁷
  
  
• Upon referral, parents are notified that they may be subject to misdemeanor prosecution and their child to filing of a truancy petition in juvenile court. Parents are offered the opportunity to participate in a diversion program and are asked to contact CJA.
  
  
• Upon contacting CJA, parents or guardians are offered a deferred prosecution diversion program and asked to sign a written contract outlining terms of the agreement.
  
  
• The parents who accept deferred prosecution are referred to community agencies that provide access to counseling, parenting skills classes, and support groups for the youth and parents. Referrals are made based on CJA’s psychosocial evaluations of truants and their families to determine the root causes of the truancy.
  
  
• Successful adherence to the terms of the deferred prosecution contract by parents results in case dismissal.⁸

Process and Implementation Outcomes

In 1996, OJJDP awarded a grant to the American Prosecutors Research Institute (APRI) to conduct an evaluation of ACT Now. Full evaluation results, documenting both the implementation process and program outcomes, are found in Abolish Chronic Truancy Now Diversion Program: Evaluation Report (Sigmon, Nugent, and Engelhardt-Greer, 1999).⁹

APRI’s process evaluation documented the planning, implementation, evolution, and operation of ACT Now from the time the program was initiated through the 1997–98 school year. Evaluation results indicate that, while the program’s purpose—to prevent chronic truancy by holding parents accountable and offering deferred prosecution along with services—has held constant since its inception, the program’s operation evolved significantly in its first 2 years, resulting in improved practice and expanded reach. The following components of the ACT Now program appear to have contributed to its successful implementation:

• Clearly stated goals and objectives that address a problem of concern to community stakeholders and provide a basis for a program in which communities can participate.
  
  
• Consistent written guidelines on program procedures, including sample letters to parents (in both English and Spanish) and referral forms.
  
  
• Annual training for key school administrators who can discuss program goals and procedures; provision of CJA and PCAO contacts who can answer school administrators’ questions about referrals throughout the year.
  
  
• Clear delegation of the development of an attendance policy and the determination of when a student is truant to school officials.
  
  
• Establishment of a minimum number of absences before a student is referred to CJA, while recognizing local school decisionmaking in determining when a referral is appropriate.
  
  
• Use of a new source of leverage in responding to truancy (the threat of parental prosecution) and a consistent response when schools refer parents of truant students to CJA after a minimum of three unexcused absences.
  
  
• A coordinated response that includes services to address the underlying causes of truancy.
  
  
• Allocation of CJA and PCAO staff, who work cooperatively with schools and law enforcement agencies in coordinating a communitywide response to truancy.
  
  
• Enforcement of attendance statutes to send a consistent message to parents and youth regarding the seriousness of truancy.
  
  
• Effective use of media coverage of the program and its associated truancy sweeps to increase the community’s awareness of truancy, its consequences, and efforts to combat it.

Two key shortcomings of the program were identified. First, at the time of the evaluation, the program had not implemented a consistent method for providing timely feedback to schools about the status of their referrals to CJA and the intervention’s outcome or whether a case was being prosecuted. Second, the computerized database and case tracking system originally envisioned by PCAO did not materialize, and the collection of data to track cases and monitor program outcomes and effectiveness was not fully implemented until fall 1997. Although the program has taken steps to address both issues, evaluators recommended continued improvement in these two areas. Conscientious followthrough with all program participants is required for the program to be effective in the future.

The successful cooperation and collaboration among agencies involved in the program have contributed significantly to the program’s success and represent an unintended consequence of its implementation. As a result of these activities, community stakeholders have developed new links that will serve as the basis for future joint activities of benefit to the community.

Evidence of Effectiveness

APRI focused on answering several key questions about the program’s effectiveness by collecting data on attendance rates (year-end attendance), number of truancies and dropouts, referrals to CJA and PCAO, services provided to youth and their families, and successful program completion/case disposition. A sample of four participating school districts was selected for a more indepth analysis of service delivery outcomes in the 1997–98 school year and attendance/truancy patterns over time. The key questions (and findings) of this evaluation follow.

What impact has ACT Now had on school response to truancy and reporting practices? The number of truancy referrals has increased steadily (from 46 in the 1994–95 school year to 332 in the 1997–98 school year) as has the number of schools making referrals to ACT Now. Data indicate that since the program’s pilot phase in 1995–96, program awareness has increased and truancy reporting has improved. In the years prior to full program implementation (1994–95 and 1995–96), there were few truancy referrals. During this time, schools made referrals directly to PCAO, and the policy of systematic dissemination of information to referring schools was not yet in place. When ACT Now became fully operational and reporting procedures were formalized, the number of schools reporting truancies (and the ratio of schools that reported to those that participated) increased substantially. This increase is a strong indication of school administrators’ confidence in the program and reflects significant change in reporting processes.

How does the threat of prosecution affect whether parents ensure that their children attend school? Evaluators looked at two measures to determine the answer to this question: (1) the number of advisory letters sent to parents compared with the number of subsequent referrals to CJA; and (2) PCAO prosecution of parents. APRI hypothesized that if the process has an effect on parental accountability, the number of referrals should be less than the number of advisory letters sent to parents, indicating that action had been taken to address the truancy. Participating schools countywide sent a total of 2,870 advisory letters to parents or guardians of truant youth between 1995 and 1998. During the same period, schools made 1,118 referrals to CJA based on the parents’ or guardians’ failure to address truancy, a number substantially less than the number of advisory letters sent. Thus, the threat of prosecution prompted 61 percent of parents or guardians to take corrective action. When the effect on parental response is examined by school year, however, a marked decrease is seen between the 1995–96 and 1996–97 school years—in 1995–96, 86 percent of parents took corrective action, as compared with only 21 percent in 1996–97. This variation over time can be attributed to a number of changes that were occurring in the program.

The decrease in the number of advisory letters sent by schools and in subsequent program referrals between the 1995–96 and the 1996–97 school years can be linked to the fact that ACT Now had not yet been formalized in 1995–96. Also, the 1995–96 school year was the first year that schools referred truancies directly to CJA rather than PCAO. CJA offered very little outreach to the schools during this time to explain their role or to build confidence among school administrators in the procedures. Both factors may account for the decrease in parental response in the 1996–97 school year. After the program procedures were more clearly articulated to school administrators, the number of advisory letters sent and parental response to the letters increased.

Truants whose parents failed to address the attendance problem or participate in the ACT Now program were referred by CJA to PCAO for prosecution. Between 1994 and 1998, PCAO handled 674 truancy cases. The number of such defendants increased over time, from 50 in 1994–95 to 372 in 1997–98. Between the 1995–96 and 1996–97 school years, the number of defendants increased 171 percent (from 68 to 184); similarly, a 102-percent increase in the number of defendants occurred between the 1996–97 and 1997–98 school years (from 184 to 372). Overall, nearly 65 percent of the cases represented truants between ages 13 and 15, and 22 percent involved truants between ages 10 and 12. The youngest truants, ages 6 to 9, represented approximately 11 percent of the cases.

Using prosecutorial discretion, PCAO did not file charges in all 674 cases. An analysis of PCAO truancy case processing by school year shows that the majority of cases were closed with no disposition, primarily because a parent or guardian could not be located. More than half of the cases were closed in school years 1994–95 and 1995–96. By the 1996–97 school year, the number of cases closed without PCAO action decreased, and more parents were prosecuted, specifically:

• In school year 1994–95, 27 percent of cases were prosecuted.
  
  
• In school year 1995–96, 23 percent of cases were prosecuted.
  
  
• In school year 1996–97, 41 percent of cases were prosecuted.
  
  
• In school year 1997–98, 41 percent of cases were prosecuted.

Of those cases that were not closed by PCAO, the majority resulted in guilty pleas, and of those that were resolved through a bench trial, 98 percent were found guilty. The most commonly imposed sanctions included community service or a $200 fine. In ACT Now’s initial phase (during the 1994 to 1996 school years), almost half of those prosecuted (42.9 percent) were sentenced to perform community service and slightly more than one-third (35.7 percent) were fined.

By the 1996–97 school year, the range of sanctions had expanded to include higher fines—between $300 and $500—suggesting a stronger attempt by the juvenile court and PCAO to hold parents accountable. In fact, during this period the number of parents/guardians who took corrective action to address the truancy before being referred for prosecution increased substantially. Fewer community service sanctions and more sentences of unsupervised probation and payment of fines were imposed. One explanation for the change in types of sanctions imposed is that the community service option did not work as originally planned. Under the initial program plans, schools were to develop community service projects at the school for parents to complete as part of their sentence. Schools were reluctant and, as a result, few developed such projects. Anecdotal information gathered during site visits and through telephone interviews indicates that because the community service concept did not work as planned, it was phased out as a sentencing option.

Are truant youth and their parents or guardians receiving adequate services to address the root causes of the truancy? CJA conducts an intake assessment before making any service referrals. Services are tailored to the specific needs of truant youth and their families to address the root causes of truancy in addition to other factors related to family social and physical health. Services range from assessments to evaluations to counseling to living assistance. In the 1995–96 school year, CJA staff made only 197 service referrals, but by the following school year, the number of referrals had increased to 593.¹⁰ The majority of referrals were for counseling, intensive case management services, and participation in the ACT Well class, a 6-hour program designed to provide information to youth and parents and help them build skills to prevent truancy. The increase in referrals continued in the 1997–98 school year; the majority of the 714 referrals made were for intake assessment followed by other services, such as counseling, case management, and conflict resolution.

To further assess service delivery, additional individual-level data were collected for the four school districts in the evaluation sample. In the 1997–98 school year, the first year individual-level data were available, 394 youth from the four school districts included in the evaluation were referred to CJA. CJA recommended services for more than half of all the youth referred. Services were recommended only for those youth whose parents responded either to the first or second CJA advisory letter (57 percent).

Of the parents who did not respond to the letters, more than one-third were referred for parental prosecution. For others of these parents (roughly 10 percent), the case was closed and no recommendations were made because the parents or youth could not be located or had moved, the youth was in an out-of-home placement, the youth was being home schooled, or the school withdrew the referral. Of the youth who were referred to services, 79 percent successfully completed the program and the charges were dismissed. As shown in the table below, parental response to the first letter from CJA is a strong predictor of successful program completion.

Preliminary evidence suggests that the provision of services has a lasting effect on subsequent truancy and parental supervision. In the 1997–98 school year, only 33 of the 394 youth (8 percent) referred from the four school districts in the sample were recidivists, suggesting that ACT Now and related services have an effect on truancy.¹¹ Ideally, tracking youth individual-level data to assess prior performance in the program would provide a further indication of the strength of the relationship between successful program completion and recidivism. However, the data available for this evaluation were insufficient for such indepth analysis.

How has the number of truancies and dropouts changed during the program? Two variables were used to assess changes in truancy and dropout rates: school reports of the number of truancies and the cumulative number of dropouts. Data were collected from PCAO and the four sample school districts for the 1996– 97 and 1997–98 school years to determine whether the number of truancies had changed.¹²

Each school district showed a decrease in the number of truancies between the 1996–97 and 1997–98 school years, ranging from a decrease of 64 percent in the largest school district to 4 percent in the smallest. The truancy rate for the largest district in the sample originally had been among the highest in the State, and thus the observed decrease is dramatic.

Another measure of the program’s effectiveness was the examination of recidivism. Because truancy data on individuals were unavailable, APRI used the number of dropouts as a proxy variable for subsequent, chronic truant behavior (i.e., recidivism). If ACT Now is effective in addressing chronic truancy, there should be a decrease in the number of dropouts relative to the number of truancies being reported. Such a finding would provide initial support for the hypothesis that ACT Now is effective in breaking the cycle of truancy before it leads to dropping out of school. With the exception of the two smaller school districts, both of which experienced a slight increase in the number of dropouts, the cumulative number of truancies and dropouts decreased from the 1996–97 to the 1997–98 school year. In addition, the largest decrease in dropouts correlated with the largest decrease in truancy rates.

Although these figures suggest that ACT Now is effective in reducing chronic truancy and school dropouts, no further concrete conclusions can be drawn from these data because the number of truancies reported does not equal the number of youth who have been truant. Truancy data on individuals are necessary to determine whether the proportion of dropouts to truants has changed over time. Moreover, without individual truancy and dropout data, it is impossible to make concrete statements about the relationship between truancy and dropping out of school.

Overall Assessment

ACT Now has developed into an institutionalized response to truancy in Pima County. The schools, law enforcement, PCAO, service providers, and the local media see the program as an integral part of the community’s efforts to address truancy and associated problems that put youth at high risk of serious delinquent behavior.

Overall, ACT Now has become a new source of leverage for schools to respond to truancy and has allowed for a more consistent response when schools make referrals to CJA. Critical to this process was the establishment of a minimum number of absences before a referral was made and a recognition of local schools’ decisionmaking authority in determining when a referral is appropriate. In addition, the relationships built among the schools, law enforcement, the juvenile court, and PCAO are an important program outcome.

The outcome evaluation supports APRI’s finding that ACT Now has resulted in a coordinated response to truancy that is embraced by the schools, law enforcement, the prosecutor, and the courts. This response is evidenced by the number of truancy sweeps, CJA referrals, services provided to youth and their parents, parental prosecutions, guilty pleas, and the increasing monetary sanctions imposed. ACT Now also appears to have an effect on parental accountability and school attendance.

This evidence, however, must be interpreted carefully, as it is based primarily on aggregate data. Individual data on truants, parents, and recidivism would provide stronger evidence. In addition, information from parents regarding their perceptions of the ACT Now program and its impact on their supervision of school attendance would further enhance the current evaluation’s findings.

Truancy Reduction: Keeping Students in School	Juvenile Justice Bulletin • September 2001