Examining What Works for Youth With Moderate Risk Involved With the Juvenile Justice System: Comparing the Effect of the Community Connections Program and a Vocational Support Program Over a 9-Year Time Period

• Author: Dan Sass,Cassandra Harper,Erin M. Espinosa,Johanna Creswell Báez
• DOI: 10.1177/0887403420916222
• Published date: 01 April 2021
• Date: 01 April 2021
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403420916222

Criminal Justice Policy Review

2021, Vol. 32(3) 300 –325

© The Author(s) 2020

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0887403420916222

journals.sagepub.com/home/cjp

Article

Examining What Works for

Youth With Moderate Risk

Involved With the Juvenile

Justice System: Comparing

the Effect of the Community

Connections Program and a

Vocational Support Program

Over a 9-Year Time Period

Erin M. Espinosa1, Dan Sass2,

Johanna Creswell Báez3, and Cassandra Harper4

Abstract

Using administrative data from an urban juvenile probation department between

January 2007 and August 2016, the study included youth who were placed on court-

ordered postadjudication community supervision and who were deemed to have

a moderate risk of reoffending by the department’s risk and needs assessment.

The two programs evaluated include a vocational support program (VSP) and the

Community Connections program (CC). Youth across both groups were matched

using propensity score matching, creating a final sample of 301 individual youth per

program. When examining the program effect of CC versus VSP across six time-to-

event variables (i.e., time to second program, detention, out-of-home placement,

another offense, violation of court order, and days in program), the findings were

mixed. However, across both programs, analyses revealed youth with a successful

discharge and longer time spent in their program had better outcomes.

1National Council on Crime and Delinquency, Oakland, CA, USA

2University of Texas at San Antonio, USA

3Columbia University, New York, NY, USA

4Southwest Key Programs, Austin, TX, USA

Corresponding Author:

Erin M. Espinosa, National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 520 3rd Street, Suite 101, Oakland,

CA 94607, USA.

Email: EEspinosa@NCCDglobal.org

916222CJPXXX10.1177/0887403420916222Criminal Justice Policy ReviewEspinosa et al.

research-article2020

Espinosa et al. 301

Keywords

juvenile justice, community programing, diversion

Introduction

Adolescents generally lack the capacity for self-regulation in emotionally charged

situations (Somerville et al., 2011), have a heightened sensitivity to external influences

(Gardner & Steinberg, 2005) and show reduced ability in making judgments and deci-

sions requiring consideration for future implications of those decisions (Steinberg,

2009). The combination of these factors can be causally related to adolescents engag-

ing in risky behaviors, especially those with a high likelihood of immediate satisfac-

tion or reward (Steinberg & Scott, 2003). Steinberg (2009) found the tendency to act

on this risky behavior increases by one third of a standard deviation between ages 10

and 16 and then decreases by one half of a standard deviation by age 26.

Subsequently, adolescence is often defined as a time when youths learn to pause or

curb their impulsive behavior, consider the future impact of their decisions, and func-

tion autonomously in the world (Steinberg & Caufman, 1996). Involvement with the

juvenile justice system negatively impacts positive psychosocial development, and

youth who are removed from their homes have been shown to face increased risks for

violence, destructive behavior, and engaging in delinquent activity (Duke et al., 2010).

Recidivism studies have shown youth returning from juvenile justice placements have

re-arrest rates ranging from 40% (Taylor et al., 2009) and 65% (Benda et al., 2001) to

as high as 85% (Trulson et al., 2005).

Community Success and Juvenile Justice-Involved Youth

Youth involved with the juvenile justice system who are supported by community-

based services have lower re-offense rates than youth who are not supported by com-

munity-based services (Cuellar et al., 2006). These youth have lower rates of pretrial

detention (Cuellar et al., 2006), fewer follow-up arrests (Cuellar et al., 2004), and are

less likely to be adjudicated or placed deeper within the juvenile justice system

(Colwell et al., 2012).

System reformers have targeted deinstitutionalization, alternatives to detention,

and deeper system involvement through community-based diversion for justice-

involved youth (Bishop & Decker, 2006; Loeb et al., 2015; McAra & McVie, 2007).

Focusing on the balance between accountability for delinquent acts and rehabilitation

(Beck et al., 2006; Mackin et al., 2010), community-based programs serve as an alter-

native to traditional disposition or system processing options (Harris et al., 2011; Leve

& Chamberlain, 2005). These programs vary in their design and approach (Hamilton

et al., 2007) depending on the type of program (Hoge, 2016; Mears et al., 2016), the

risk level of the youth (Vincent et al., 2012), and the intercept point in the juvenile

justice system process where the program is used or introduced as a delinquency inter-

vention (Cocozza et al., 2005).