Public Safety Assessment

 

Best Practices

PREVENTION

As was mentioned previously, the precursors to crime occur very early in the lives of many serious offenders. These predictors involve a complex array of risk factors. Changing those risk factors requires a complex intervention that affects parents, as well as children, and that occurs early in the lives of youths (Loeber & Farrington, 1998).

Early intervention in childhood and early adolescence can reduce the likelihood of young at-risk juveniles becoming offenders. According to Loeber and Farrington (1998), prevention efforts should target known risk factors through comprehensive, multiple-component, community-based prevention programs in disadvantaged neighborhoods. The best prevention efforts are based upon an integration of different services, including services provided by the juvenile justice system, schools, mental health, medical health, and child protection agencies.

These ideas are supported by the American Youth Policy Forum (AYPF), who, through an analysis of program evaluations, identified program principles that lead to positive outcomes for youth (Garry, November 1999). These principles include:

  • Quality implementation

  • Caring, knowledgeable adults

  • High standards and expectations

  • Parent/guardian participation

  • Community involvement

  • Holistic approaches

  • Youth as resources (community service and service-learning)

  • Work-based learning

  • Long-term services, support, and follow-up

    These principles are also supported by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention's Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders (Wilson & Howell, 1993 from Loeber & Farrington, 1998). According to OJJDP, principles of successful programs include:

  • Strengthen the family in its primary responsibility to instill moral values and provide guidance and support to children.

  • Support core social institutions (schools, religious institutions, and community institutions) in their roles of developing capable, mature, and responsible youth.

  • Promote delinquency prevention as the most cost-effective approach to dealing with juvenile delinquency. When children engage in "acting out" behavior, such as status offenses, the family and community, in concert with child welfare services, must take primary responsibility for responding with appropriate treatment and support services. Communities must take the lead in designing and building comprehensive prevention approaches that address known risk factors and target youth at risk of delinquency.

  • Intervene immediately and effectively when delinquent behavior occurs to prevent delinquent offenders from becoming chronic offenders or progressively committing more serious and violent crimes. Initial intervention attempts should be centered on the family and other core social institutions.

  • Identify and control the small group of serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders who have failed to respond to intervention and non-secure community-based treatment and rehabilitation services offered by the juvenile justice system.

    One example of a local "best practice" that follows many of the guidelines listed above is the Children at Risk, or SIHRY, program. SIHRY is a drug and delinquency prevention program for high-risk youth ages 11 to 13, who live in a distressed neighborhood in Austin. This program delivers integrated, comprehensive services to youth and all members of their household that target community, family, and individual risk factors. According to a recent evaluation of the program, youth in the program exhibited less antisocial behavior and committed fewer violent crimes than youth in a control group (Harrell, et. al., November 1999).

JUSTICE SYSTEMS

Focus Group Meeting Results

Travis County Health, Human Services, and Veterans Service's Research and Planning Division met with juvenile and adult criminal justice system experts in order to identify best practices in Travis County. During these focus group meetings, the programs listed in Table 15 were identified as "programs that work".

In addition to the programs in Table 15, many of the individuals who attended the focus group meetings stated that, in general, offense-specific courts, such as the Drug Court, Family Violence Court, and Community Court, are more effective and efficient than traditional courts. Local experts stated that these courts allow for a better understanding of causes of criminal behavior and are, consequently, better able to provide services to prevent recidivism.

Table 15.
Best Practices in Travis County Juvenile and Adult Criminal Justice Systems

Best Practice

Juvenile

Adult

ATCAP (mentoring)

X

 

Camelot Care

X

X

Cognitive skills intervention in the jail

 

X

Community policing

X

X

Community Court

 

X

Community Service Restitution

X

 

Crime Victims Compensation Fund's response time

 

X

Crisis counseling with 2-3 days of incident

 

X

Crisis shelter for female and young victims

X

X

Drug and alcohol counseling; job training

X

X

Emergency Protective Order/Protective Order

 

X

Family Preservation

X

X

Family Violence Task Force

 

X

Juvenile Justice Alternative Education Program

X

 

Leadership Academy

X

 

More support for victims through court process

 

X

Multiple agency collaborations

X

X

Neighborhood Conference Committee

X

 

Pot of Gold Victim Program

X

 

S.H.O.R.T. (drug court)

 

X

Southwest Keys

X

 

Stronger penalties for repeat domestic violence offenses

 

X

TRIAD program

X

X

Victim Offender Mediation Program

X

 

Source: Focus groups conducted by Travis County HHS & VS - Research & Planning with system experts

Community Survey Results

As was mentioned previously, a survey was distributed to community members to get their input on the juvenile and adult criminal justice systems. When asked, "In your opinion, what are the best things about the criminal justice system in Travis County?", responses included:

  • Juvenile substance abuse treatment centers

  • Options for juveniles other than TYC

  • Counseling for juveniles

  • Openness to new approaches

  • Community Court

  • Drug Court

  • Truancy program

  • Children's Advocacy Center

  • Victim's Services

  • Good District Attorney and Assistant District Attorneys

Victim Services

In January 1999, a report was written describing the status of the development of the Victim Services 2000 (VS 2000) model in Austin/Travis County. The aim of VS 2000 was to create a comprehensive, seamless network of victim services in collaboration with public and private agencies that consistently provided the highest quality of services (Pelaez-Wagner & Torres, 1999). In preparation for this activity, a literature review of "best practices" was performed and although some concrete examples of victim service delivery models were identified, most of the research seemed to identify theoretical "best practices" models. A summary of the main findings is listed below:

  • In San Diego, CA victim impact statements provided at the time of sentencing are videotaped and captured on CD-ROM, creating a "permanent" record for future review during parole hearings.

  • Hospital emergency rooms should be included in comprehensive victim service delivery models because victims of violent crime are more likely to show up at an ER than to report to law enforcement.

  • "One Stop Shopping", providing a comprehensive service center, originated in Jacksonville, Florida and appears to be successful. The center provides a range of services in one location for all crime victims. Services include emergency funds, counseling both on-site and with a crisis response team, representatives from the state victim compensation program, self-help programs such as MADD, and training for victim advocates, justice agencies, citizen groups etc.

  • Formal linkages between agencies and departments within a community assist the victim in proceeding through the various levels of service, but more successful linkages have been shown when a volunteer or "traveling companion" accompanies the client to each agency or department. This companion can be a professional service provider, or it can be a family member, friend, neighbor, church member, or community group member who has been oriented and trained to provide informal support to the client throughout the victim services process.

  • In many areas of human services, case management models have been demonstrated as successful paradigms for providing advocacy and coordination of services for people with multiple needs. Many researchers have advocated this model for victim services, although there are no examples to-date of how the effectiveness of this model in this area.

  • The Protocol Development Model provides steps to improve a community's response to victims. The first task is to develop an interagency council that would perform the following eight steps: make an inventory of existing services, design and distribute a victim experience survey, conduct a community needs assessment, write the protocol for how the system should operate, renew interagency agreements, train personnel on how to administer duties in the protocol, monitor implementation, and evaluate the impact of the new protocol.

  • The CARES Management Model (Collaboration, Advocacy, Resource Development, Education & Services) involves community planning to link across systems to coordinate and thereby strengthen the formal and informal support programs in the project's own network and also to integrate it into the existing and emerging city/county-wide victim service delivery system.

    One local organization does provide a coordinated team of service providers for victims, and that is the Austin/Travis County Family Violence Protection Team. Their goals are to protect victims of domestic violence and to prosecute those charged with the crime. The Team offers a full range of services to the victims of family violence in just one visit, including investigations, counseling and lawyers' consultations. Team members include the Travis County Sheriff's Office, the Travis County Attorney's Office, the Austin Police Department, the Austin Child Guidance Center, the Women's Advocacy Project, Legal Aid of Central Texas, and SafePlace.

Assessment Home

12. Refer to the Community Action Network's Housing Assessment and the Through the Roof report for more information on larger community housing issues that affect offenders.

© Community Action Network