I.T. v. Los Angeles County: The Role of Quantitative Data in Assessing Institutional Reform

• In Event: 66.038 - I.T. v. Los Angeles County: Improving Equity in Juvenile Corrections for Youth With Developmental Disabilities

Abstract

Objectives
This presentation will describe (1) the quantitative data that were analyzed to help determine compliance with the Settlement Agreement and effectiveness of its implementation; (2) the challenges of using Probation collected data; and (3) the results of the data analyses regarding required institutional reforms to improve services and outcomes for youth with DD (e.g., referral and meeting timelines, special housing/disciplinary unit referrals and interventions, recidivism rates).

Perspective
Singer (2012) raises concerns about technical compliance with court-ordered consent decrees rather than true reform. A willingness to mediate a settlement and develop a common approach to problems has been found to bring about greater change than through court-imposed injunction or consent decree. Since institutional reform is considered complicated and policy implementation often difficult, ongoing collection and analysis of relevant data has been considered important to determine implementation fidelity (Sheldon-Sherman, 2013).

Mode of Inquiry
This presentation is based on quantitative data that were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Number and percentage were calculated for youth population demographics and Settlement Agreement requirements, such as time line requirements for referrals and multi-agency meetings, reasons for special housing unit referrals and interventions attempted prior to these referrals, and recidivism rates.
Data Sources
The County Department of Probation generated Excel data files (e.g., Weekly Logs) in accord with the Settlement Agreement. They included many separate files that researchers matched to create comprehensive files for the purpose of analysis. This procedure resulted in a final sample of 423 intakes of youth with DD that included 270 unique youth (i.e., some youth were released and had subsequent intakes).
Results
The results show the population of DD youth was 88% male and largely youth of color (47% Hispanic, 46% and African American). The top three offenses at intake were arrest warrants (21%), failure to obey/probation violations (20%), and assault or battery charges (18%). The data show high rates of compliance with parts of the Settlement Agreement. Seventy-four percent of DD youth were referred within the required two days of their detention to the coordinator for DD youth and 85% of multi-agency meetings to devise treatment plans for the youth occurred within the required 28 days of the referral to the coordinator (Tables 1 and 2). Noncompliance was considerably reduced over the three-year period. However, data also show high rates of referrals to a special housing/discipline unit for the youth and almost half of the inventions prior designated as “no intervention” or an “uncontrolled situation”. Thirty-four percent (n = 85) of the 250 youth with DD whose data were available recidivated (i.e., had a new sustained charge or probation violation or an adult conviction within one year of discharge).

Significance
The analysis of the weekly data collected by Probation for each youth entering the detention facility provided information about these youth, and, importantly, the extent of technical compliance with the Settlement Agreement as well as continuing areas of concern.

Authors

• Lois A. Weinberg, California State University - Los Angeles

• Denise Herz, California State University - Los Angeles

• Kristine Chan, California State University - Los Angeles