I.T. v. Los Angeles County: The Role of Qualitative 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 qualitative data collected to assess the implementation and effectiveness of the Settlement agreement; (2) areas of strength and weakness in implementation; and (3) recommendations for improving interagency collaborative efforts.

Perspective
Moving beyond the limitations of the quantitative data, findings from this presentation address issues concerning the quality of implementation as it pertains to the intent of the Settlement. While consent decrees serve as a viable mechanism for improving systems and ensuring legal compliance, it is necessary to measure compliance and continued implementation of these efforts through various measures (Sheldon-Sherman, 2013). The research team went about this investigation, identifying multiple ways to measure and gain diverse perspectives about the efforts to improve care and services for detained youth with developmental disabilities.

Mode of Inquiry
A team of researchers conducted meeting observations, staff interviews, and reviews of documents from 2012-2016. Employing a structured query, the researchers devised interview protocols and rating rubrics based on goals stated in the Settlement and the resulting policy that detailed procedures for Probation (Tables 5 and 6).

Data Sources
Data sources included staff interviews (n=34), meeting observations (n=97), and case file reviews (n=50). Interviews were coded among three raters using a web-based qualitative software; Cohen's kappa, ranged from 0.70 to 0.74. Monthly treatment planning meetings were held for each youth identified with a developmental disability. Researchers observed these meetings, and a rating tool of 104 binary (present/not present) variables was devised (Table 7); percent agreement was 88.1%. A case file rubric allowed raters to assess the written documents designed to improve youths' care and services during detention and as they discharge from detention. Agreement of 100 percent was established on ten case files before researchers independently rated the remaining files.

Results
Findings from the observations and case files indicate that goals across agencies were largely unmeasurable. Probation reported unmeasurable goals in 99% of meetings, and 100% of the written documents recorded unmeasurable goals. Department of Mental Health reported unmeasurable goals in 97.9% of the meetings, and 80% of written documents included unmeasurable mental health goals. The County Office of Education reported unmeasurable goals in 94.8% of the meetings, but only 88% of the goals as recorded in the written documents were unmeasurable. While all agencies would benefit from training in developing measurable goals, results show that Probation needs immediate assistance in understanding the importance of goals that are achievable and measurable. Other findings showed that staff across agencies viewed the institutional processes as a strength, but weaknesses included a lack of training, a lack of feedback on discharge planning, and confusion on the identification of youth with developmental disabilities.

Significance
While many positive aspects of implementation were found (e.g., interagency involvement, institutional processes, etc.), recommendations for technical assistance addressed the topics of identification of developmental disabilities, writing measurable goals, and assessment of positive behavior interventions. This evaluation study identified areas for improvement that will directly impact the care and services for detained youth with complex needs.

Authors

• Jolan Smith, University of California - Los Angeles

• Michael Oshiro, University of California - Los Angeles

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