U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Los Angeles County Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act Fiscal Year 2010-2011 Report

NCJ Number
Terry Fain; Susan Turner; Greg Ridgeway
Date Published
158 pages
This report presents the findings and methodology of an evaluation of Los Angeles County's implementation California's Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA), which requires the State to be a stable funding source to counties for juvenile programs that have proven effective in preventing crime among juvenile probationers and at-risk juveniles.
The JJCPA designated the Corrections Standards Authority (CSA) the administrator of funding. In fiscal year (FY) 2010-2011, 36,749 youth received JJCPA services. Of these, 15,103 (41.1 percent) were at risk and 21,646 (58.9 percent) were on probation. Youth in one or more JJCPA programs receive services, often provided under contract by community-based organizations (CBOs), as well as supervision by a probation officer. Los Angeles County JJCPA programs are organized into three initiatives: Enhanced Mental Health Services, Enhanced Services to High-Risk/High-Need Youth, and Enhanced School- and Community-Based Services. This report lists the JJCPA programs in each initiative in FY 2010-2011 and the number of participants who received services in each program. Overall, youth in the enhanced Services to High-Risk/High-Need Youth initiative had higher rates of completion of restitution, but higher rates of arrests, incarcerations, and probation violations compared to control youth. Differences between the two groups in rates of completion of probation and completion of community services were not statistically significant. Taken as a whole, youth in the enhanced School- and Community-Based Services initiative had significantly better outcomes on four of the "big six" measures than the baseline period or comparison group. Although comparison-group youth had significantly fewer incarcerations, program youth had significantly higher rates of completion of probation, restitution, and community services. Program youth also had a significantly lower rate of probation violations than comparison-group youth. Results of a cost analysis are presented, and limitations of this evaluation are addressed. Extensive tables and figures, a bibliography, and 7 appendixes with supplementary information