The research evaluation literature on what works to promote the deinstitutionalization of status offenders is limited, and not as extensive as the “what works” literature in delinquency prevention and other areas of juvenile justice because the research base is not yet as rigorous. As a result, DSO strategies cannot be rated with the same scale that is applied to programs in OJJDP’s Model Programs Guide (i.e., exemplary, effective, or promising; see http://www2.dsgonline.com/mpg). However, the MPG does include direct service prevention and intervention programs aimed at particular status offenses (e.g., truancy, ungovernability), and at youths at risk of status offenses and their families.
Evaluating Direct Service Strategies
To be included in the DSO Best Practices Database, programs must a) have been in operation 2 years, and b) be able to provide empirical evidence of some impact on DSO trends, [i.e., provide data showing improvement between at least two points in time (e.g., before the program and 1 year later)]. The types of data that can be used to demonstrate impact are defined by OJJDP’s long-term outcome performance measures for DSO (for more on DSO performance measures, see Program Area 8: Deinstitutionalization of Status Offender Performance Measures (Logic Model).
Below are inclusion criteria, definitions, and examples of data for direct services strategies addressing each of the five types of status offenses, and for system change strategies.
Direct Service Strategies [BACK TO TOP]
Criteria for inclusion: [BACK TO TOP]
The program must a) have been in operation for at least 2 years, and b) provide data showing improvement between at least two points in time (e.g., before the program and 1 year later).
Examples of data evaluated:
Truancy [BACK TO TOP]
Definition: violation of a compulsory school attendance law
Examples of data evaluated (change in number and percent from at least two points in time):
§ Youths referred to court for truancy
§ Youths with unexcused absences reported by schools
§ Number of unexcused attendances
§ Number of "days tardy"
§ Youths who dropped out from high school
§ Youths who were suspended or expelled from school
§ Locally reported daytime crime
Running away [BACK TO TOP]
Definition: leaving the custody and home of parents or guardians without permission and failing to return within a reasonable length of time
Examples of data evaluated (change in number and percent from at least two points in time):
§ Youths referred to juvenile court for running away
§ Youths reunified with the parents/guardians
§ Parents/guardians who report improved parent–child communication or relationship
§ Average length of time between referral and reunification
Ungovernability/Incorrigibility [BACK TO TOP]
Definition: being beyond the control of parents, guardians, or custodians
Examples of data evaluated (change in number and percent from at least two points in time):
§ Youths referred to juvenile court for incorrigibility/ungovernability
§ Parents/guardians who report improved parent–child relationships
§ Parents/guardians who report improved parent–child communication
§ Parents/guardians who report a reduction in behavioral problems
Violating curfew laws [BACK TO TOP]
Definition : violation of an ordinance forbidding persons below a certain age from being in public places during set hours
Examples of data evaluated (change in number and percent, or rate, from at least two points in time):
§ Youths referred to juvenile court for curfew violations
§ Juveniles victimized by crime
§ Juveniles admitted to local hospital emergency rooms
§ Juvenile crime during curfew hours
Violating underage liquor laws [BACK TO TOP]
Definition: possession, use, or consumption of alcohol by a minor
Examples of data evaluated (change in number and percent from at least two points in time):
§ Youths arrested for underage drinking
§ Referrals to juvenile court for underage drinking
§ Reoffense rates for underage drinking
The types of DSO trends affected can include the following:
§ Reduction in the number of violations of the DSO requirement from the previous reporting period compared with the current reporting period
§ Reduction of entry (arrest) and/or penetration of status offenders and nonoffenders into the juvenile justice system (e.g., percent change in rate of arrest, referrals to juvenile court, formal petitions files, delinquency findings, probation)
§ Increase in the use of diversion out of the juvenile justice system
§ Reduction in the use of detention and confinement (commitment) of status offenders and nonoffenders
§ Reduction in the use of detention alternatives for status offenders and nonoffenders
Evaluating System Change Strategies [BACK TO TOP]
System change initiatives seek to address DSO by modifying organizational policies, procedures, rules, and systemwide “ways of doing business” that define how a juvenile justice system operates. System change initiatives need to be comprehensive, balanced, and multidisciplinary. Types of system change strategies that can influence DSO typically include reform through changes in laws and ordinances, and jurisdictional reform. Unfortunately, comparatively few of these types of efforts have been empirically evaluated. Assessment of these strategies for the DSO Best Practices Database includes using OJJDP’s system of performance measurement, which provides output and outcome measures for DSO.
Long-term outcome measures include the following:
§ Implementing new legislation impacting the handling of status offenders, persons in need of supervision (often referred to as PINS), children in need of supervision (CHINS), or families in need of services (FINS)
§ Developing collaboration of key stakeholders to guide DSO
§ Conducting assessment studies
§ Implementing recommendations from assessment studies
§ Determining contributing factors from assessment studies
§ Implementing data improvement projects at the State or local levels
§ Developing or expanding programs (especially community-based and other alternatives to detention)
§ Creating or amending program/agency policies or procedures
§ Implementing objective decision-making tools