encies and the distances derived in Appendix A.
The city is represented by its total area ( 𝐴!"#$), total number of packages to deliver per day (𝑁 !),
average number of packages per stop (trucks only) (𝑛 !), percentage of packages delivered by
dro


ck a single center. Detailed analysis would require knowing the volume of drone-delivered packages and the volume that can be carried by a truck. Our set of assumptions err on the conservative side relative to most of our results, and alternative ass


!%&  Airframe mass fraction  30%
𝑚!"!#$%!  Systems mass fraction  15%
𝑚!"#$%&  Design mass margin  10%
𝑚! Mass of package  2 kg laden, 0 kg unladen

It is outside the scope of this report to conduct a detailed exploration of the aircraft design


q. 2.4
Although this equation may appear complicated, several simple approximate relationships
can be seen. Ignoring the vertical component (𝐸 !"#$%&'( ), the energy consumed increases with  the
square root of the area of the city for both drones


delivered by drones increases. In Figure 2.3, the y-axis shows the energy consumed per package as the fraction of packages delivered by drone increases on the x-axis. Panel (a) of the figure shows the energy consumption for the variable mass describ


those discussed in the previous chapter),
infrastructure decisions, such as number of drone centers, must consider such issues as the
required size of the drone fleet and the degree of encroachment into populated or otherwise occupied spaces. This


 each company and a larger total number of drones would be expected.
We do not have data for the cost of drone centers or the cost of the drones themselves, but
these results suggest that capital costs of additional drone centers may be offset , at


 Given Number of Drones  Overhead
Within 0.2 km for a Los Angeles –Sized City , by Number of Drone Centers

Figure 4.1 shows the results for a Los Angeles–sized city and uses the same parameters as
were used for determining the number of drones


ently low as to not contribute to annoyance, and in others, they could be high enough to be widely viewed as unacceptable. Figure 4.2 helps illustrate such ranges.

2 Federal Aviation Administration ,


kages per day.

𝑍= 𝑁
𝑆!𝑛 Eq. A.1a
𝐴!=𝐴!"#$
𝑍 Eq. A.1b
For the traveling salesman problem, the expected distance traveled with 𝑆! stops uniformly
distributed over 𝐴 ! area is as follows:1

𝑑!=𝑘!"# 𝑆!𝐴! Eq. A.2

The total distance traveled f


izing, as follows:

𝑑!"#=𝑥!+𝑦!𝑑𝐴
𝑑𝐴 Eq. A.8
It is sufficient to integrate over the triangle corresponding to one-twelfth of the hexagon, as
illustrated in panel (b) of Figure A.1, and then multiplying by 12.

𝑑!"#=𝑥!+𝑦!𝑑𝑥𝑑𝑦!!"# (!!"# )
!!!!!!
!


The Defibrillator Drone Is Another Good Drone Idea But Will It Work?” IEEE
Spectrum, October 30, 2014. As of May 30, 2016:
http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/drones/defibrillator-drone-another-good-drone-idea
Bramwell, A. R. S., G. Done,


ier, M., M. Schafer, V. Lenders, and I. Martinovic, “Realities and Challenges of
NextGen Air Traffic Management: The Case of ADS-B,” IEEE Communications Magazine, Vol. 52, No. 5, May 2014, pp. 111–118.
Sunil, E., J. Hoekstra, J. Ellerbroek, F. Buss


CORPORATION
Los Angeles County
Juvenile Justice CrimePrevention Act
Fiscal Year 2016–2017 Report
Terry Fain, Susan Turner, Nima ShahidiniaLimited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected b


t the legislatively mandated evaluation of the county’s JJCPA programs, including analyzing data and reporting findings to the BSCC. This report summarizes the fiscal year 2015–2016 findings reported to the BSCC, as well as additional program informa


 Crime
Prevention Act: Fiscal Year 2008–2009 Report , Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corpora -
tion, TR-832-LACPD, September 2010b
• Te
rry Fain, Susan Turner, and Greg Ridgeway, Los Angeles County Juvenile Justice Crime
Prevention Act: Fiscal Year 200


l-Based Probation Supervision for High School At-Risk
Youths, by Cluster, FY 2016–2017  .............................................................. 51
 2.
10. Ou
tcomes for School-Based Probation Supervision for High School Probationers,
FY 20


es for Programs That Used the
Previous Year’s Cohorts as Comparison Groups  ............................................. xxiv
 S.
5. Pa
rticipants, Budgets, and Estimated Per Capita Costs, by JJCPA Program,
FY 2016–2017  ........................


51xii    Los Angeles County Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act: Fiscal Year 2016–2017 Report
 2.14.  Factors Used to Match School-Based Probation Supervision for High School
P
robationers and Comparison-Group Youths  ............................


2016–2017  ......................................... 112
 E.
3. Ou
tcomes for Housing-Based Day Supervision, FY 2016–2017  ........................... 112
 E.
4. Ou
tcomes for School-Based Probation Supervision for High School At-Risk
Youths, FY 20


zed funding for county juvenile justice programs and designated BOC the administrator of funding. A 2001 California Senate bill extended the funding and changed the program’s name to JJCPA. The legislature intended the program to provide a stable fun


ant difference from the previous year. For the school-based probationer programs, we used propensity-score matching to create a comparison group, starting with a large group of routine probationers who were not in JJCPA programs and statistically mat


responsive to service needs. In collabora -
tion with school officials, parents, and community partners, JJCPA deputy probation officers can coordinate service plans that include various school- and community-based resources.
The Probation Department


ne JJCPA program, and a single youth can participate in the same program
more than once within the reference period (e.g., if a youth in one of the school-based programs changes schools). Therefore, xviii    Los Angeles County Juvenile Justice Crime


he total number of youths served will be somewhat less than the total number of participants.
We know that at least 26,715 youths received JJCPA services in Los Angeles County in FY 2016–2017. We cannot know the exact number because 507 youths in th


 number of participants in a given program by who received
services during the fiscal year, which lasted from July 1, 2016, to June 30, 2017. To allow a six-month eligibility period for recidivism, however, the number for whom a program reported out


reported outcomes only for participants who received treatment services. See Appendix A for more details.Summary    xxi
mental health treatment reported both baseline and follow-up Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI)
scores. These program-to-program discr


st measure-ment periods.
9 IOW and MH, programs administered in juvenile halls, measure outcomes in the six months prior to hall entry and six
months following hall exit for the hall stay during which program services were received.xxii    Los Angel


m following program entry than in the prior term. SBMS-PROB participants had significantly higher rates of completion of probation and completion of com -
munity service. SBMS-PROB participants also showed significant improvement in overall risk scor


Table S.3
Results from Simple Comparisons in Programs That Used the Previous Year’s Cohorts as Comparison Groups
Program Arrest IncarcerationCompletion of
ProbationCompletion of
RestitutionCompletion
of Community
ServiceProbation
Violation
GSCOM


am. For MH, we report big six outcomes only for those who received treatment, but we compute costs for all who were screened.
11 This method of counting participants is consistent with the way the BSCC counts JJCPA participants state-wide.Table S.4Re


 by JJCPA Program, FY 2016–2017
ProgramBaseline, in 2016 Dollars Follow-Up, in 2016 Dollars
ParticipantsDifference
of Means, in
2016 Dollars Mean 95% Confidence Interval Mean 95% Confidence Interval
Enhanced Mental Health Services 24,432 23,560 25,


 youths who have virtually no involve-ment with the juvenile justice system.
We note also that savings in juvenile justice costs for arrests, camps, and juvenile hall stays
do not take into account potential savings associated with improved family a


eline period.
Conclusions
As with any evaluation, our assessment of the JJCPA program in Los Angeles County has some
inherent limitations. This evaluation used quasi-experimental designs to test the effectiveness of JJCPA programs. Quasi-experimenta


ison-group
youths are relatively small, but they are consistent enough that they appear to be real differ -
ences rather than statistical anomalies. County-developed supplemental outcomes tend to be more favorable than state-mandated big six outcome


ly Bill [AB] 1913), which authorized funding for county juvenile justice programs and designated the Board of Corrections (BOC) the administrator of funding. A 2001 Califor -
nia Senate bill extended the funding and changed the program’s name to the


n of community service, and (6) probation violations. Each county can also request that programs measure supplemental outcomes for locally identified service needs (BSCC, 2017). The reporting requirements were changed in 2017, with funding for JJCPA


and his or her social ecology, including the family, peers, school, neighborhood, and other commu -
2 The BSCC was formerly called the Corrections Standards Authority (CSA), the successor to BOC.
3 Because AB 1998 did not require counties to report b


in all ways except for the receipt of treatment (i.e., the comparison group would not receive any). In practice, the evaluation might not identify or measure all factors. However, in criminal justice research, researchers often match comparison group


m partici -
pants, are weak designs, and the reader should interpret results from such comparisons with this weakness in mind. In particular, pre–post comparisons for probation-related outcomes, such as successful completion of probation, do not take


rticipation or because they were receiving counseling services elsewhere. SNC near misses failed to qualify for inclusion in SNC either because they were close to 18 years old or because Probation did not consider their level of mental illness, which


than comparison-group youths have. Even if program participants and comparison-
4 For the two programs based in juvenile halls, we measured the big six outcomes for the six months after a youth returns
to the community, rather than from program star


re statistically significant (i.e., whether we can assert with a reasonable degree of certainty that the differences in the two groups’ outcomes did not occur by chance but resulted from real differ -
ences between the groups. These include chi-squar


f a 95-percent CI for the odds ratio of the interaction term year × post  is greater than 1, we can conclude that the current year’s cohort had a less favorable
outcome (i.e., improved less between baseline and follow-up) than the previous year’s co


The current evaluation uses quasi-experimental designs to test the effec -
tiveness of JJCPA programs. Quasi-experimental designs construct comparison groups using matching or other similar techniques and then compare the performance of the treatment


ed programs, or family functioning for
HRHN) were constructed or to the justification for their construction or use. Another limita -
tion of this report is that, although we can determine statistical significance for a given out -
come, we have no


pond closely to the five districts that elect members to BOS
•
 Ap
pendix G: reproduction of Probation’s form for assessing family relations10    Los Angeles County Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act: Fiscal Year 2016–2017 Report
• Appendix H: rep


 within the reference period (e.g., if a youth in one of the school-based programs changes schools). Therefore,
because of double-counting, the total number of youths served will be somewhat lower than the total number of partici -
pants. We know th


31, 2016. The participants for whom a program can report outcomes during the fiscal year must enter the program in time to have six months before the end of the fiscal year, so the number of participants will not match the number for whom a program


initiative addressed juvenile mental health issues: MH, MST, and SNC.
We evaluated participants in the Enhanced Mental Health Services initiative based on
comparison with an appropriate group for each program. Appendix D provides detailed statis -
t


isses for eligibilityCurrent JJCPA Programs and FY 2016–2017 Outcome Measures    15
Mental Health Screening, Assessment, and Treatment
The MH program is designed to provide screening, assessment, and treatment services for
newly detained youths ente


e strengths of the family unit and the youth (National Mental Health Association, 2004).
4 Because most of the Los Angeles County JJCPA programs were established in 2001, the evidence base for the program
was necessarily based on research available


on release from juvenile hall, whichever came first.
7
Outcomes
For outcome analyses, we examined 690 participants in the MH program who received mental health treatment in FY 2016–2017 and 1,117 comparison-group youths who received mental health tre


complete details on all outcomes in Table D.1 in Appendix D. Data on cluster and gender were not available for MH participants for FY 2016–2017. Like with all the figures in this chapter, Figure 2.1 reflects a simple comparison between the two group


in the MST program had significantly lower rates of arrest (23.7 percent versus 37.2 percent for comparison-group youths) and incarceration (10.7 percent versus 25.5 percent), as well as significantly higher rates of completion of probation (7.0 perc


tcomes, with complete details for all out -
comes in Table D.2 in Appendix D. We had school-related outcomes on only a small number of MST participants, but those for whom we did have data ( N = 28) showed significantly
higher school attendance (91.


fornia; Hennepin County, Min -
nesota; and Marion County, Indiana, clients in all four sites showed lower annual rearrest rates and fewer incarceration days (Steadman et al., 2011).
DOJ has also specifically referenced the success of drug courts as a


ourts because therapeutic intervention is more consistent with the general approach to juvenile justice. The juvenile drug court model was soon generalized to address concerns other than drug use. The goals of juvenile courts are to do the following:


ollowing program
entry. For the comparison group, we measured big six outcomes in the six months following the date of nonacceptance into the SNC program.
Outcomes
Outcome analyses compared 25 SNC participants with 33 comparison-group youths. Compa


Programs and Outcomes in Initiative II: Enhanced Services to High-Risk/High-
Need Youths
The Enhanced Services to High-Risk/High-Need Youths initiative targets program partici -
pants at the highest risk of reoffending and those with the highest nee


iscal Year 2016–2017 Report
2006). The services that the DPO and participant CBOs provide strive to increase protective
factors and decrease risk factors. Gender-specific CBO services include the following:
• pa
rent orientation and support workshop


s)Current JJCPA Programs and FY 2016–2017 Outcome Measures    27
• mentors who share experiences that resonate with the realities of girls’ lives and who
e
xemplify survival and growth
• ed
ucation about women’s health, including female development,


 year. The program selected participants who had arrests that led to probation supervision or who were considered at high risk for such arrests.
We measured big six outcomes for both cohorts in the six months following entry into
the program. We mea


es for male participants, home-based services for female participants, and employment services for both male and female participants. The program goals are to
•
 im
prove school performance
• st
rengthen the family
• st
rengthen parental skills
• li


and other parts of the participant’s environment. It focuses on school attendance and per -
formance, parenting skills, and family functioning. The SLC is designed as a set of program enhancements to supplement services for HRHN participants. The SLC


, both biological and foster parents receive parental training. The program trains parents to monitor daily peer associations and the whereabouts—at all times—of their children. In addition, the program trains parents to know their children’s peers a


odels (Bennett et al., 2017).
 –cr
eation of links with community resources and social networks. This element of
case management is rooted in the conviction that parole agencies cannot effectively provide the range and depth of services required for


the program and in the six months following entry into the community phase. For the gender-specific, home-based component, we measured scores on a scale of family relations at program entry and six months later or upon program exit, whichever came f


n Program, Intensive Gang Supervision, and school-based DPOs refer youths with substance abuse issues to community-based providers for comprehen -
sive assessment. A central focus of this programming is to ensure that each high-risk proba -
tioner tr


 recog -
nize drug cravings early on and to identify high-risk situations for use, and developing strate-gies for coping with and avoiding high-risk situations and the desire to use. A central element of this treatment is anticipating the problems th


y and in the six months following program entry or at the time of program exit, whichever came first.36    Los Angeles County Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act: Fiscal Year 2016–2017 Report
Outcomes
We based outcome measures on the performance of


e previous year’s cohort in five of the big six outcomes and exceeded expectations for rates of arrest, with the FY 2016–2017 cohort showing a statisti -
cally lower rate (14.4 percent) than the FY 2015–2016 cohort had (19.2 percent).
Difference-in-d


use
• ra
te of child abuse and neglect
• nu
mber of residents living below the poverty level.
Programs and services included in this initiative are ACT, HB, IOW, PARKS, SBHS-AR,
SBHS-PROB, SBMS-AR, and SBMS-PROB. A total of 21,399 youths received se


, for instance, school data were not available or the program
did not evaluate strength or risk for all program participants. Because IOW, SBHS-AR, and SBMS-AR use program participants from the previous year as their comparison groups, we also inclu


en truancy programs hold parents accountable for their children’s school atten -
dance and when intensive monitoring and counseling of truant students are provided.
OJJDP documents several programs that have been found to be effective in reducing tru


ned 6,762 ACT participants. ACT participants had signif -
icantly fewer school absences—a mean of 9.8  days—in the 180 days after program entry than in the 180 days immediately preceding program entry, when the mean absence rate was 15.4 days; this r


 func -
tioning and success by implementing case-management interventions and services that
•
 ad
dress criminogenic needs and risk factors, based on a research-based risk and need
instrument validated for the Los Angeles delinquency population
• en


eline to 96.4 percent in the term of program entry, but the difference was not statistically significant. No HB participants were arrested or incarcerated at either baseline or follow-up.
14
Because all participants in the HB were at-risk youths, pro


 and oral communi -
cation
• re
cognition: distribution of participants’ writing to parents, schools, libraries, government
officials, and the general public.
Evidence Base for the Program
Many juvenile detainees have reading and writing levels sign


of the
program, whichever came first) were significantly lower in the follow-up period (0.0033) than in the first 30 days of the program (0.0704). Figure 2.7 shows BSCC-mandated big six out -
come results. Table D.9 in Appendix D lists all additiona


alker, 1995; Piquero et al., 2009; Martin and Dowson, 2009; Benson et al., 2012). Implicit in this perspective is the recognition that prevention programming must address risk factors at the appropriate develop -
mental stage and as early as possible


y and educational and social skills.
In addition to supervising youths on school campuses, DPOs provide a variety of services, including early probation intervention, for youths exhibiting antisocial behavior or performing poorly in school. The progr


 as
sess the probationer’s strengths and risk factors
• em
ploy strength-based case-management interventions
• ad
dress both risk factors and criminogenic needs
• em
ploy evidenced-based treatment intervention
• pr
ovide prosocial adult modeling and


s significantly lower (3.1 versus 7.4) six months after program entry than at program entry. FY 2016–2017 and FY 2015–2016 SBHS-AR participants showed very similar arrest and incar -
ceration rates, with the differences between the two cohorts not st


es for School-Based Probation Supervision for High School At-Risk Youths, FY 2016–2017
NOTE: A star indicates a statistically significant difference ( p < 0.05) between the two
groups.Current JJCPA Programs and FY 2016–2017 Outcome Measures    51
Sc


 N = 989)Comparison-Group Youths
(Weighted) ( N = 1,002)
Mean age, in years 15.8 15.9
Male, as a percentage 82.0 82.1
Race or ethnicity, as a percentage
Hispanic 63.6 63.1
Non-Hispanic 36.9 36.4
Black 27.7 27.2
White 7.1 7.1
Other 2.1 2.1
Instant of


e available for all but 17 youths (98.3 percent) in the SBHS-PROB pro -
gram. Figures 2.11 and 2.12 illustrate big six outcomes by cluster. Table E.5 in Appendix E shows outcomes by gender. Table F.3 in Appendix F contains more detail on big six outc


 and only one in the term after program entry. In addition, pro -
gram participants had significantly lower mean barrier scores (3.7) six months after program entry than at program entry (7.4). SBMS-AR participants also had significantly higher mean


2.0 2.5
Cluster 3 34.5 35.3
Cluster 4 23.2a14.4a
Cluster 5 18.2 18.9
NOTE: Because this program targets only at-risk youths, we did not
include in the comparison the type of previous offense. None of the SBHS-AR participants in either year had a gan


lowing program entry. We compared strength and risk scores at the time of program entry and at six months thereafter.Figure 2.14
Outcomes for School-Based Probation Supervision for Middle School At-Risk Youths, by Cluster, FY 2016–2017
NOTE: A missin


robation Supervision for Middle School Probationers and Comparison-Group Youths
FactorSBMS-PROB
Participants ( N = 42)Comparison-Group Youths
(Weighted) ( N = 628)
Mean age, in years 14.8 14.8
Male, as a percentage 76.0 76.4
Race or ethnicity, as a


ant difference ( p < 0.05) between the two
groups.Current JJCPA Programs and FY 2016–2017 Outcome Measures    61
barrier scores significantly lower, six months after program start than at program entry. After
six months, family relations improved s


at corresponds to that used in measuring big six and supplemental outcomes.
1 In this chapter, we give more detail about the estimation of
each of these costs and savings.
We note also that, by definition, at-risk youths are likely to have virtually


rved (probationers, at-risk youths, or both).
In addition to the usual JJCPA programs, the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Committee
identified unspent funds from previous years that could be used for one-time costs. These were spent on a New Directio


016–2017
Program or InitiativeParticipants
ServedBudget, in
DollarsPer Capita
Expenditure, in Dollars
Enhanced Mental Health Services 7,167 6,243,404 871
MH 7,003 4,535,430 648
MST 113 438,903 3,884
SNC 51 1,269,071 24,884
Enhanced Services to Hig


d of in Los Angeles County in 2016 yields an estimated cost of $3,255.25 per disposition.
Summing the estimated cost of the DA ($1,516.82), the estimated cost of the public
defender ($844.44), and the estimated court cost ($3,255.25) yields a total


n youth,
the ADA is the value that the SD places on one day’s attendance.
Calculating Costs
To determine cost estimates for the relevant reference period (baseline and follow-up) for each youth in the program, we counted the number of arrests, the n


ople had high costs while many others had low costs (or none at all) could often drive mean costs. For this reason, we present median costs, as well as means, in the tables in this chapter, to allow readers to identify estimated costs that such a phe


tUnit Cost,
in 2016
DollarsBaseline Follow-UpDifference, in 2016
Dollars
UnitsMean,
in 2016
DollarsMedian,
in 2016
Dollars UnitsMean,
in 2016
DollarsMedian,
in 2016
Dollars Mean Median
Arrest 2,121.10 0.68 1,452 0 0.56 1,196 0 256 0
Camp 8


ring the baseline. Median costs, by contrast, were lower in the follow-up period than in the baseline, indicating that mean costs were driven by only a few youths. We estimated costs in FY 2016–2017 for only 25 SNC participants, so high costs for a s


ost produced a mean total cost of $15,119 in the follow-up period, compared with $30,221 in the baseline, a net saving of $15,102. Median costs were much lower but still showed a net saving of $2,248 in the follow-up period.
Estimated Costs for Youth


ates that the cost was higher after entering the program than before entering. All units are days except for arrests, which are measured by the number of arrests, and court, which is measured by the number of appearances. Because of rounding, some da


m in the follow-up period was also quite small, at $54 per participant.
Table 3.8
Estimated Juvenile Justice Costs for Abolish Chronic Truancy
Juvenile
Justice CostUnit Cost,
in 2016
DollarsBaseline Follow-UpDifference, in 2016
Dollars
UnitsMean,


cipant consisted of $1,474 in program costs, as Table 3.11 shows.
Table 3.9
Estimated Juvenile Justice Costs for Housing-Based Day Supervision
Juvenile
Justice CostUnit Cost,
in 2016
DollarsBaseline Follow-UpDifference, in 2016
Dollars
UnitsMean,


imated Juvenile Justice Costs for School-Based Probation Supervision for Middle School At-Risk Youths
Juvenile
Justice CostUnit Cost,
in 2016
DollarsBaseline Follow-UpDifference, in 2016
Dollars
UnitsMean,
in 2016
DollarsMedian,
in 2016
Dolla


 an integral part of many JJCPA programs
and can reasonably be expected to be higher in the follow-up period than in the baseline—in fact, we defined program costs as 0 in the baseline, guaranteeing that program costs would be greater in the follow-


, Probation requested that we evaluate the big six and supplemental outcomes as in previous years. Those analyses form the basis for this document.
This report presents outcome measures for 14 programs in the Los Angeles County JJCPA
for FY 2016–201


 more-positive outcomes for four of the big six out -
comes.
 –SB
MS-PROB participants had significantly higher rates of completion of probation
and successful completion of community service. There was no significant difference between the two grou


ually exclusive, but they allow for different ways of analyzing the same data.
The Enhanced Mental Health Services Initiative
Because participants in the MH program represent about 87 percent of all participants in the Enhanced Mental Health Services


months between program entry and exit. In the YSA program, the two
supplemental outcomes—percentage of youths with positive drug tests and overall percent -
age of drug tests that were positive—showed no significant differences between baseline and


roup, were significantly more positive for four of the five supplementary outcomes (school attendance, suspensions, and overall strength and risk scores) following program entry. For big six outcomes, SBHS-PROB participants had significantly lower ar


l year indicates that that fiscal year had a significantly more positive result on that outcome
measure. A dash indicates no significant difference between the two cohorts. n.a. = not applicable.88    Los Angeles County Juvenile Justice Crime Preven


measure. A dash indicates no significant difference between the two cohorts.Summary and Conclusions    89
• For the most part, the seven programs that utilize the previous year’s cohorts as compari -
s
on groups showed no significant statistical diff


dministration.
Ten of the 14 JJCPA programs in Los Angeles County had lower costs for arrests in the six
months after program entry than in the prior six months, and HB participants had no arrests
in either time period. Five programs saw reduced ca


ed to the criteria used in selecting these comparison groups were not available to RAND; thus, we could not verify their comparability. During FY 2003–2004, Probation collaborated with us to define new comparison groups for four of the JJCPA programs


re–post research designs.
We have used research designs established in FY  2008–2009 in all subsequent years,
including FY 2016–2017.93APPENDIX B
The Probation Department’s Ranking of the Big Six Outcome
Measures
The Probation Department’s rational


pital Los Angeles Substance abuse treatment 1, 2, 3
Communities in Schools HRHN employment services 3
Community Career Development HRHN employment services 2
Didi Hirsch Mental Health Services Substance abuse treatment 3
Helpline Youth Counseling Gan


all. We measured the supplemental outcome when a youth entered the program and at three weeks after the youth entered the program or was released from juvenile hall, whichever came first.
a Difference is statistically significant ( p < 0.05).98    Lo


ced Services to High-Risk/High-Need Youths
Table D.4
Outcomes for Gender-Specific Community, FY 2016–2017
BSCC-
Mandated OutcomeProgram Comparison
Number Percentage Sample Size Number Percentage Sample Size
Arrest 19 2.21 861 18 2.85 631
Incarceratio


00
Incarceration 18 10.11 178 11 5.50 200
Completion of probation15 11.36 132 15 10.00 150
Completion of restitution22 20.56 107 28 21.10 109
Completion of community service13 12.26 106 12 10.34 116
Probation violation21 15.91 132 27 18.50 150
BSCC S


ear. There were too few probationers to report probation outcomes; this program serves both at-risk and probationer youths.BSCC-Mandated and Supplemental Outcomes for Individual JJCPA Programs, FY 2016–2017    105
Table D.9
Outcomes for Inside-Out Wr


. n.a.
Completion of restitutionn.a. n.a.
Completion of community servicen.a. n.a.
Probation violationn.a. n.a.
BSCC Supplemental OutcomeBaseline Follow-Up
Number Mean Sample Size Number Mean Sample Size
School attendance85.34 1,904 93.24
a1,904
Scho


l-Based Probation Supervision for Middle School At-Risk Youths, FY 2016–2017
BSCC-
Mandated OutcomeProgram Comparison
Number Percentage Sample Size Number Percentage Sample Size
Arrest 13 1.83 712 5 0.68a570
Incarceration 3 0.42 712 0 0.00 570
Comple


ited the program, whichever came first.
a Difference is statistically significant ( p < 0.05). Statistical testing is not possible if one of the measures is 0.111APPENDIX E
Board of State and Community Corrections–Mandated Outcomes,
by Gender
This a


14    Los Angeles County Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act: Fiscal Year 2016–2017 Report
Table E.6
Outcomes for School-Based Probation Supervision for Middle School At-Risk Youths, FY 2016–2017
BSCC-
Mandated OutcomeFemale Participants Male Parti


r High School Probationers, FY 2016–2017
OutcomeCluster
1 2 3 4 5
Percentage Sample Size Percentage Sample Size Percentage Sample Size Percentage Sample Size Percentage Sample Size
Arrest 18.02 172 25.40 126 19.02 163 20.44 137 22.99 374
Incarceratio


 Program Start Date:
Minor’s First Name:  Minor’s Last Name:
Mother’s First Name:  DOB:
Gender:  Cluster 3 Ethnicity:
PRE TEST DATE: POST TEST DATE:
Instructions: Please have the program staff fill out this form (1) upon program e


N: AT-RISK YOUTH
Youth ID:  PDJ:  JAIN:
Program Name/Csld No.  JJCPA Program Start Date:
Minor’s First Name:  Minor’s Last Name:
Mother’s First Name:  DOB:
Gender:  Cluster 3 Ethnicity:
PRE TEST DATE:  POST TEST DATE:
Instructions: Plea


nd Treating Conduct Problems in Youth , New York: Springer New York,
2011, pp. 245–271.
Altschuler, David M., and Troy L. Armstrong, Intensive Aftercare for High-Risk Juveniles: A Community Care
Model—Program Summary , Washington, D.C.: U.S. Depart


866.pdf
Bureau of Labor Statistics, “CPI Inflation Calculator,” undated webpage. As of February 7, 2017:
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl
California Courts, Judicial Branch of California, “Trial Court Funding, Expenditures, and Positions: 2015


No. 9, August 2010. As of April 4, 2017: http://fyi.uwex.edu/whatworkswisconsin/files/2014/04/whatworks_09.pdf
Connell, James P., J. Lawrence Aber, and Gary Walker, “How Do Urban Communities Affect Youth? Using
Social Science Research to Inform the


18:
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1908.html
Fain, Terry, Susan Turner, and Sarah Michal Greathouse, Los Angeles County Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention
Act: Fiscal Year 2011–2012 Report , Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, RR-2


ber 1996. As of February 7, 2017: http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS62071
Goldkamp, John S., and Cheryl Irons-Guynn, Emerging Judicial Strategies for the Mentally Ill in the Criminal
Caseload: Mental Health Courts in Fort Lauderdale, Seattle, San Be


 Factors for Alcohol and
Other Drug Problems in Adolescence and Early Adulthood: Implications for Substance Abuse Prevention,” Psychological Bulletin , Vol. 112, No. 1, July 1992, pp. 64–105.
Hawkins, Stephanie R., Phillip W. Graham, Jason Williams,


 and
Recidivism: The Impact of Academic Achievement,” Reading and Writing Quarterly , Vol. 24, No. 2, 2008,
pp. 177–196.
Lamberti, J. Steven, “Preventing Criminal Recidivism Through Mental Health and Criminal Justice
Collaboration,” Psychiatric Se


ints/RP1164.html
McHugh, R. Kathryn, Bridget A. Hearon, and Michael W. Otto, “Cognitive–Behavioral Therapy for
Substance Use Disorders,” Psychiatric Clinics of North America , Vol. 33, No. 3, September 2010, pp. 511–525.
McKeon, Kevin, and Kelly Can


stem,” undated.
———, Guide for Implementing the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders ,
Washington, D.C., May 1995. As of July 2, 2018:
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/guide.pdf
OJJDP— See Office of Juvenile Jus


e Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, “Drug Treatment Courts Offer Hope for
Youth,” SAMHSA News , Vol. 21, No. 1, Winter 2013. As of February 6, 2017:
http://www.samhsa.gov/samhsanewsletter/Volume_21_Number_1/drug_treatment.aspx134


geles County
Social Learning Model,” presentation to the Los Angeles County Probation Department, Downey, Calif., 2005.
van der Stouwe, Trudy, Jessica J. Asscher, Geert Jan J. M. Stams, Maja Deković, and Peter H. van der Laan,
“The Effectiveness of


A Multi-Site Evaluation of Law Enforcement Deflection in the United States
MELISSA M. LABRIOLA, SAMUEL PETERSON, JIRKA TAYLOR, DANIELLE SOBOL, JESSICA REICHERT, JON ROSS, JAC CHARLIER, SOPHIA JUAREZ
 Prepared for the National Institute of Justice
 CO


port should be of interest to entities interested in deflection programs.
Justice Policy Program
RAND Social and Economic Well-Being is a division of the RAND Corporation that seeks to actively improve the health and social and economic well-being of


ntion, 2022a); the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2022b) estimates that more than 107,000 Americans died from drug overdose in 2021 alone, with about three-quarters of these deaths tied to opioids.
Many law enforcement and first responde


 can be done in a co- responder approach)
Definition
An individual voluntarily initiates contact with a first responder (a law enforcement, fire services, or EMS professional) seeking access to treatment—without fear of arrest—and receives a referral


RCES: Adapted from Charlier and Reichert, 2020; Ross, 2022.
As of late 2022, there has been little evaluation work done on deflection programs in the United States. With respect to deflection programs’ outcomes, two literature reviews on deflection p


able advantages of self-referral programs include the relative ease with which agencies can implement them and the quick turnaround time in which treatment and services (typically built around either [1] opioid use disorder [OUD] and overdose and/or


reatment Alternatives for Safe Communities (TASC) and Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority (ICJIA), we were able to identify six sites that offer a range of program models, various levels of partnerships, levels of resources, police force


e use challenge in the area, program history, program description and procedures, program goals, eligibility, treatment and other services offered, funding, collaborative partnerships, reflections on implementation and achievements, and data. Intervi


n average, the number of opioid deaths in Lake County each quarter was 0.00002 per person living in the county.
7
Table 2.2. Descriptive Statistics of Outcome Indicators in the Lake County Analysis
   Other IL Counties
0.02 (0.03) 0.70 (0.32) 0.16 (0


dents and deaths were gathered from the Massachusetts Emergency Medical Services and Department of Public Health, respectively. Arrest data are from the Massachusetts crime statistics dashboard (Massachusetts Crime Statistics, undated), and SUD treat


908 (2.294) 61,033.8 (18,017.7) 1717.3 (3,532.2) 8.700 (3.404) 5.246 (1.300)
   1
SOURCE: Data from the 2014 American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau, undated).
13
a The ACS asks this question if the respondent was living in the same place one y


le, we also calculate an absolute standardized mean deviation (ASMD) to test balance between the treated and synthetic control units (Parast et al., 2021). The effect of the program is then estimated by comparing the actual values of the dependent va


in each site, although with important differences. In two sites (Site 2 and Site 5), self-referral was the original pathway and has remained the main source of clients. In both sites, the self-referral mechanism was very similar: Members of the publ


 materials or based on word-of-mouth referrals.
In addition to police officers, all six sites made use of other non–law enforcement personnel in interactions with clients. Again, some notable differences emerged across the sites, primarily whether th


engaging individuals. However, despite these processes’ ability to improve the situation of some individuals, two potentially important gaps remain, particularly for self-referral programs that require individuals to be willing to present themselves


xperience an urgent need for support services. Relatedly, multiple interviewees highlighted increasing acceptance of deflection principles among police officers and law enforcement agencies. Lastly, with respect to community perspectives, some interv


, numerous interviewees also pointed out that broader challenges pertaining to service provision for people who use drugs also indirectly affect deflection programs by impacting the likelihood of a participant’s successful connection with an appropri


nts a brief summary of a discussion of an in-progress paper by Jon Ross and colleagues. 18
  moment the participant is connected with treatment or other services through a warm handoff to a treatment or services partner. In other cases, the involveme


present another option to avoid issues surrounding law enforcement and stigma, although fire department–led programs currently account for a relatively small fraction of deflection practice.
A corollary to this discussion is that the pernicious impac


provisions, with the aim of understanding the variability across existing programs, their origins, and their implementation, and of creating a typology of existing programs (e.g., Charlier and Reichert, 2020; Formica et al., 2021). The evidence base


ide connection and warm hand-offs to treatment, admissions to substance use treatment providers may increase. Second, increased access to and engagement with substance use treatment and other services may reduce drug overdoses or fatal drug overdoses


thetic control results for Lake County, Illinois, and Plymouth County, Massachusetts, across seven outcomes: treatment admissions, nonfatal overdoses, fatal overdoses, fatal opioid overdoses, property crime arrests, DUI arrests, and drug offense arre


andardized p-value from placebo tests; Q = quarter.
Figure 5.1 displays the treatment and synthetic control unit trends for fatal opioid overdoses over time. As shown, the pre-intervention match quality is adequate, and the post-intervention differen


imited data quality, the only health outcomes we were able to analyze are quarterly treatment admissions and yearly fatal overdoses (Table 5.3). The synthetic control estimate in the pre-treatment period for fatal overdoses was not an adequate fit to


ection programs need to make in terms of how to operationalize and structure their programs to best suit the needs of their communities.
The findings from this report, in conjunction with the BJA survey, indicate that there are some trends emerging a


necessary to view those perspectives as coming from a limited number of sources. It is possible that different perspectives would have been offered in different programs.
For the outcome analyses, we lacked knowledge about other concurrent deflection


c questions may be omitted if determined to be not relevant for a given party. Note that because a given party will not be asked all of these sets of questions, the sum of the projected time for each of these sets of questions exceeds the estimated i


and supported, did that include representative numbers of community residents across races and socio-economic populations in your community?
10. Was there a formal or an informal planning team? Was your organization involved in the planning of the pr


escribe the process of receiving clients via the deflection program? [prompts: At what stage of their involvement with the program would they reach your organization? do they come directly from the police department? Do they come via another agency?


ide Naloxone? Are any of your services gender-responsive or gender-specific? Do you provide education and support for impacted family members, including children?]
39. [non-treatment only] What services do you provide within your organization? [promp


training?
c. What information is provided in the training?
d. Do you include information that addresses the multi-generational transmission of
addiction within families—and the trauma it engenders?
57. Have you, or an outside entity, trained civilian


ogram goals, successes, challenges, or other program related issues? If so, could you describe the mechanism? How is the report distributed?
73. How do you let the community/public know about the deflection program?
74. What, if any, comments have yo


ed between the treatment provider and police?
88. Is an authorization for release of information form used to allow the police department to follow up with participants? (ask to share)
a. If not, do treatment providers share aggregate information reg


ompt: is there anything specific about the program in [JURISDICTION] that would prevent its replication elsewhere?]
100. How sustainable is the program? [prompts: financially, in terms of stakeholder
support, etc.]
101. Any other questions or comment


: https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/images/Final_Report_Draft_ 11-15-2017.pdf
Clarke, V., V. Braun, and N. Hayfield, “Thematic Analysis,” in J. Smith, ed., Qualitative Psychology: A Practical Guide to Research Methods, 3


e Illinois Association of Problem-Solving Courts Conference, Normal, Ill., October 19–21, 2022. As of December 13, 2022:
https://www.ilapsc.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Innovative-Response-.pdf
Saloner, B., E. E. McGinty, L. Beletsky, R. Bluthentha


  Research Report
LOIS M. DAVIS, SUSAN TURNER, MICHELLE C. TOLBERT, ALLISON KIRKEGAARD, BEVERLY A. WEIDMER
Assessing the Impact of COVID-19 on Prison Education
Survey Results
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to have profound


ell (SCP) Experimental Initiative, the U.S. Department of Education did
not waive the restriction regarding correspondence classes, instead offering several alternatives for dis- tance learning, such as teaching over email or by conference calls. The


pact these changes are having on incarcerated stu- dents and their access over the short and long term. Our study fills this void.
RAND Corporation research (Davis et al., 2013 and 2014; Bozick et al., 2018) has shown that edu- cation and training pr


on the size of the prison population and mitigation measures undertaken by cor- rectional authorities
• secondary analysis of state prison data on COVID-19 infection rates
• a web survey of state correctional education directors to gather information


popula- tion newly infected with COVID-19 from April 2020 to March 2022. The UCLA COVID Behind Bars Data Project is an initiative supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that has col- lected data on the spread of COVID-19 in


rsion of the web survey was esti- mated to take between 20 and 30 minutes and consisted of 48 items focused on the impact of COVID-19 and responses to the pandemic on instructional delivery and quality, access to education and training programs, cred


. general population).
Figure 2 also shows newly infected cases for the prison population by census region between April 2020 and March 2022. Overall, the different census regions showed two major peaks—in fall 2020 and winter 2022. However, the timi


addition, 38 states reported completely sus- pending educational programs in all correctional facilities within their state, and seven states reported doing so in some facilities, at some point between March 1, 2020, and February 28, 2021 (Table 1) (


s completely suspended
Transfers between prison and local jails 43 Educational programs 38 Drug/alcohol treatment programs 31 Prison labor programs 39 In-person family visitation 49 Legal visitation 35
SOURCE: Carson, Nadel, and Gaes, August 2022, Ap


ent of COVID-19 in the prison population and changes in the population size pro- vides us with the overall context for our survey find- ings on how correctional education programs in U.S. state prison systems were affected by COVID-19.
The RAND surve


 (97%)
26 (90%)
Shifted to self-directed paper-and-pencil correspondence
19 (66%)
14 (48%)
17 (59%)
13 (45%)
Shifted to instructor-led online learning
6 (21%)
7 (24%)
6 (21%)
2 (7%)
Shifted to hybrid online learning
6 (21%)
6 (21%)
6 (21%)
3 (10%)
Sh


 training programs. The majority of
 10
TABLE 3
Impact of COVID-19 on Access to Education and Training Programs in 2020
 Issues and Effects
Issues that affected access to education/training programsa
COVID-19 outbreaks among the prison population and


s reported a decrease
of 25 percent or greater and seven state directors reported no change in 2020. The lesser impact on college programs may be because earning of college degrees often takes longer for incarcerated students than the general student


des all school areas and units.
We were somewhat surprised that more technol- ogy hardware and software were not purchased to specifically mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on correctional education programs. Twelve state directors reporte


ollege programs, a majority of state directors reported that the pandemic resulted in an inability to provide hands-on instruction in these
two areas (Table 7). Sixty percent of directors also cited reduced access to instructional materials, lower st


9%)
Negatively affected communication between instructor and students 17 (59%)
Inability to provide hands-on instruction required for some college programs 17 (59%)
NOTE: Survey respondents were asked to check all that apply.
(90%)
  number of admiss


nt of Education’s
 16
Office of Educational Technology summarized the conditions for achieving digital equity in education as requiring a balance between:
• aninformationtechnology(IT)infra- structure that provides students with reliable access to co


arningmodelscombineonlineandin- person instructional experiences (U.S. Department of Educa- tion, 2022). Rosen and Vanek (2020) make a distinction between hybrid and blended learning as follows: “The key difference between blended and hybrid learning


https://github.com/uclalawcovid19behindbars/behindbarstools
Lee, Daniel, Dennis Giever, Michelle Tolbert, and Laura Rasmussen, Bridging the Correctional Education Information Gap: Lessons Learned from Piloting a Voluntary Education Data System, U.S.


ered to incarcerated individuals.
Currently, there are no systematic or comprehensive assessments of the adjust- ments that state correctional systems and colleges that provide instruction inside prisons made to education programming. Nor are there a


epresentation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to its webpage on rand.org is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduc


  CORPORATION
 ASSESSING THE READINESS FOR
HUMAN COMMERCIAL SPACEFLIGHT SAFETY REGULATIONS
 CHARTING A TRAJECTORY FROM REVOLUTIONARY TO ROUTINE TRAVEL
     DOUGLAS C. LIGOR, BENJAMIN M. MILLER, MARIA McCOLLESTER, BRIAN PHILLIPS, GEOFFREY KIRKWOOD, JO


more routine in the years ahead. Like the evolution of other industries, the question of how and when the spaceflight industry should be regulated at a federal level is receiving increasing attention—not only within the industry and federal agencies


 Acqui- sition and Technology Policy Program, see www.rand.org/nsrd/atp or contact the director (contact information is provided on the webpage).
Acknowledgments
We thank the leadership of the Federal Aviation Administration’s Office of Strategic Man


FAA will be authorized to propose and issue regula- tions upon expiration of the moratorium, the law requires the FAA to “encourage, facilitate, and promote commercial space launches and reentries, including those involving space flight participants


al industry. Finally, we discuss the suite of available options, their potential implications, and our recommendations about how to develop a safety framework that might include regulations.
As to the current state of voluntary industry consensus sta


ing voluntary consensus standards and meeting key metrics. An assessment of regulatory readiness depends also on five key factors: (1) access to, and understanding of, the regulatory process; (2) security of regulatory support (i.e., the level of cer


 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
ix
Assessing the Readiness for Human Commercial Spaceflight Safety Regulations
 CHAPTER 6
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


vel on govern- ment rockets,3 and it has more recently evolved into several private companies developing launch capabilities that they sell to both government and private customers.4
As of 2022, these services were prohibitively expensive for all but


ound the globe.
Travel to space is not safe compared with any other form of transportation or tourism.7 The history of space travel has many unfortunate examples of how errors can quickly result in the death of participants.8 Fortunately, there has n


nment astronauts, or space flight participants; and
(D) be issued with a description of the instance or instances when the design feature or operating practice being restricted or prohibited contributed to a result or event described in subparagraph


ety recommendation report on the SpaceShipTwo crash can be read in National Transportation Safety Board, Safety Recommendation, August 4, 2015b.
 3
Assessing the Readiness for Human Commercial Spaceflight Safety Regulations
 recommendations have rema


19 National Transportation Safety Board, Safety Recommendation A-15-026, August 4, 2015g.
20 Public Law 114-90, U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act, November 25, 2015. (We sub-
sequently refer to this law as CSLCA.)
 4
Introduction
 tori


“con- sultation and coordination” with COMSTAC on the development of “key indus- try metrics that might indicate readiness of the commercial space sector and the Department of Transportation to transition to a safety framework that may include regul


of the moratorium on October 1, 2023.
Given this focus, we also scoped our definition of commercial space industry to commer- cial entities directly involved, or directly supporting, the business of participant spaceflight for compensation or hire, a


els,” Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 137, December 2018.
 7
Assessing the Readiness for Human Commercial Spaceflight Safety Regulations
 informed these findings and recommendations and is found in in each of the chapters of this re


s,” webpage, undated-a; and International Organization for Standardization (ISO), “Developing Standards,” webpage, undated.
3 Circular No. A-119, 1998.
4 Public Law 104-113, National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, 1996; and Circular


nd developing to mean efforts by industry through such mechanisms as SDOs or other formal collaborative forums (i.e., COMSTAC) to seek stakeholder input, draft, and then publicly publish standards. We understand adopting to mean industry members appl


semblies to be used on space and launch vehicles and defining a human spaceflight spacecraft ontology. The organization also has two stan- dards under development.
12 FAA, undated-d; and CSLCA of 2015, § 111.
13 FAA, 2022a, p. 3.
Because we used the


such as COMSTAC and ASTM, in laying the groundwork for standards development.
This progress included the development of a Commercial Spaceflight Committee within ASTM, which the FAA highlighted as a significant step in forming consensus standards.18


cluded as an appendix in the 2022 report.27
Our Assessment of Industry’s Progress
Industry’s Current Approach to Spaceflight Participant Safety Standards
According to the information garnered during our interviews, the commercial space indus- try has


is manner, the FAA issued guidance on participant safety in 2014 through a publicly available report entitled Recommended Practices for Human Space Flight Occupant Safety.32 This guidance provided a reference for companies on spaceflight participant


g industry stakeholders exists, (2) the value provided by the consensus standards development process, and (3) the challenges to progress in developing and adopting consensus standards.
During our discussions with industry and government stakeholders


tly regulate them out of business.”43 Relatedly, another interviewee emphasized that the process helps ensure that any standards or regulations implemented based on stakeholder collaboration would be familiar to industry—i.e., their content would not


s to make necessary changes and ensure compliance with determined standards or regulations. Newer entrants into the human spaceflight arena may still be in a startup phase, however, and thus are less likely to have the resources and capabilities to m


ds cannot be developed concurrently with the development of devices, technologies, or processes. We also note that this presumption is not supported in at least some of the scientific literature regarding technology, equipment, and machine design and


er 7, 2022.
56 Government officials, interviews with the authors, September 13, 2022, September 27, 2022, and Octo-
ber 6, 2022.
57 Government officials, interview with the authors, September 13, 2022. We note that any changes (such as those noted in


afety framework that may include regulations.”1 The FAA delivered its report that included these metrics, prepared in consultation with COMSTAC, to Congress in October 2017.2 The second of three topics we cover is “the progress of the commercial spac


ustry-led framework could obviate the need for government involvement,” at least to a point.8
The five premises that underlie its indicators shed light on the FAA’s view, as of its 2017 report, of when government involvement would become necessary. T


ped create elements of a space safety framework
• The extent to which the FAA has engaged with industry regarding standards development
• The extent to which the FAA has published safety practices related to commercial human spaceflight
• The extent


indicators that meet criteria abbreviated by the acronym SMART: specific,
10 FAA, “Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee, Spring Meeting,” April 28, 2016c.
11 FAA, “Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee, Fall Meeting,” Octob


rian Phillips, Elaine Lin Wang, Harold D. Green, Joe Fran- combe, Hamish Evans, and Susan Guthrie, Transforming Global Education Through Evidence: An Evalu- ation System for the BHP Foundation’s Education Equity Global Signature Program, RAND Corpora


ports to Congress do not specify targets for the indicators that would indicate readiness for regulation. (See FAA, 2017b; FAA, 2019a; FAA, 2022a.) Interviewees typically were unable to identify what appropriate targets for the indicators might be (g


lay as of this writing in January 2023.
Figure 3.1 displays the number of commercial human spaceflights and number of people on those spaceflights, by year, starting with SpaceShipOne’s five flights in 2004 (each with one crew member on board) throug


ernment officials, interview with the authors, October 7, 2022.
SOURCE: Total number of flights: FAA, 2022e. Number of people by flight by year: FAA, “Licensed Launches,” webpage, undated-f, and FAA, “Permitted Launches,” webpage, undated-h.
 28
Prog


als, interview with the authors, October 6, 2022.
37 The FAA’s October 2017 report stated that there “is no active commercial U.S. provider of orbital or sub-
orbital human space flight” (FAA, 2017b, p. 17). The FAA’s February 2019 report stated, “Th


Space Flights on Track for Second Quarter,” Bloomberg, November 3, 2022b; Virgin Galactic, “Virgin Galactic Announces Third Quarter 2022 Financial Results and Provides Business Update,” press release, November 3, 2022.
45 Loren Grush, “Jeff Bezos’s B


stry size and com- plexity readiness area.53
Despite these data and projections, history gives reason for caution. Launch companies have encountered obstacles and delays in developing their systems. Interviewees attributed some of these delays in par


lly difficult to regulate: the changing and non- uniform nature of vehicle designs as companies pursued different design and engineering strategies. One interviewee contrasted the commercial space industry in this regard with the aviation industry, w


es also said that the industry had shown momentum in recent years. According to one interviewee, the number of spaceflight participants has increased dramatically since 2019, even if the baseline from that year was low.67 Another interviewee said tha


 1 in 100,000 (or 0.001 percent) for scheduled commercial air service.72 Furthermore, the catastrophic failure rate for commercial human spaceflight may evolve over time as technology matures.
A more-expansive tabulation of significant incidents in U


ips current supply of these services being offered by operators. For example, Virgin Galactic’s most recent quarterly report to the Securities and Exchange Commission includes a section on “Customer Demand” that indicates that “as of September 30, 20


n Developing a Safety Framework
The second set of indicators pertains to industry’s progress in developing a safety frame- work, encompassing the readiness areas of voluntary safety reporting, voluntary consensus standards, and compliance. As the FAA


r- mation.88 Despite the lack of direct knowledge and details about internal safety reporting, interviewees did not raise concerns or indicate that they had reason to believe that companies were failing to track safety incidents internally. On the ot


s, interview with the authors, December 7, 2022.
 37
Assessing the Readiness for Human Commercial Spaceflight Safety Regulations
 notably the January 2022 report, as well as through COMSTAC meetings and documents produced by SDOs, including ASTM, ISO


 these are distinct from vol-
97 Government officials, interview with the authors, October 13, 2022.
98 Government officials, interview with the authors, September 1, 2022.
99 FAA, 2017b; FAA, 2022a.
 38
Progress Toward Meeting Key Industry Metrics


vernment officials, interviews with the authors, September 13, 2022, September 27, 2022, October 6, 2022, October 7, 2022, October 13, 2022, October 18, 2022, and November 1, 2022.
105 FAA, 2017b.
 39
Assessing the Readiness for Human Commercial Spac


gencies Appropriations Act, conference committee joint explanatory statement, December 19, 2022.
112 U.S. Senate, Explanatory Statement for the Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill


ewees pointed out that AST lacks resources to carry out its current reg- ulatory duties, especially given the growth of the space industry overall, let alone to take on a major new role writing and implementing spaceflight participant safety regulati


rent expertise and skill sets.124 The FAA would benefit from staff with more knowledge and technical skill sets relevant to human safety regulation, interview- ees said, with one person suggesting that additional collaboration between NASA and the FA


022 dollars (the first quarter of FY 2023), adjusted for inflation using the Gross Domestic Product Implicit Price Deflator from BEA (based on the deflator for the first quarter of each FY). FY 2021 to FY 2023 amounts reflect enacted appropriations.


ions might be ready for some forms of regulations, while others might not be. That said, as described in following chapters, we ultimately recommend allow- ing the moratorium to end. This will allow for a new phase of metrics development. Thus, in th


nder paragraphs (5), (6), and (7).”6 To meet this statutory requirement, we further recommend that the FAA proceed to implement a SpARC.7
It is important to note that we are not suggesting or recommending that any particular regulations be issued at


 and government astronauts in addition to commercial spaceflight participants.
9 See, generally, the Administrative Procedure Act, U.S. Code, Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, Section 553, Rulemaking. See also regulations delineating th


 stakeholders, interviews with the authors, September 13, 2022, September 15, 2022, September 26, 2022, October 6, 2022, and November 8, 2022.
15 COMSTAC members are listed at FAA, “Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee, Janu- ary 2023 M


ecember 7, 2022. We note that, as stated in Chapter 1, the FAA maintains authority (notwithstanding the moratorium) to regulate if incidents occur that result in “a serious or fatal injury . . . to crew, government astronauts, or space flight partici


ccording to these stakeholders, resource con- straints both at the FAA and across the industry should be taken into account if and when safety regulations are developed.
26 Industry officials, interviews with the authors, November 18, 2022, and Decem


ted for the purposes of conducting a benefit-cost analysis pursuant to Office of Management and Budget Circular A-4 and Executive Order 12866.33 A cost analysis could occur during the SpARC or formal rulemaking processes. Moreover, rather than focusi


 to issue regulations in a timely manner (if at all) or the issuance of regulations that would not be effective (with respect to safety and/or industry growth).35
Normative and Subjective Issues
An assessment of the readiness of the commercial space


pant was relevant to the question of imposing formal (binding) regulations on the industry.36 Some interviewees did not believe that there should not be any distinction between a participant who is an adventure-seeker and a participant who is traveli


whether the risk of death or injury to a partici- pant warrants formal regulations based on the nature of space travel itself. Some interviewees noted that space travel, regardless of the purpose of travel (adventure-seeking, employment, transport, e


re sports occurs primarily through the state court systems, but also through state legislatures via sport safety statutes.45 Decades of lawsuits filed against adventure sport providers have created an existing and enforceable body of case law that fu


protect customers from injury negligently caused by the provider (Greer, 2012, p. 88); negligent facility design and operations (Horton, 2004, p. 621); failure to reasonably maintain a ski slope (Greer, 2012, pp. 95–96); failure to remove a stump fr


ssume that this is a powerful incentive to ensure safety, it is not a measurable one (in the absence of conducting further research). Therefore, we cannot say to what degree, and under what circumstances, this incentive may or may not ensure partici-


y certifications or standards are entirely and voluntarily within the discretion of the commercial provider and that any recourse for death or injury would likely only be available through litigation (assuming that the commercial entity denied any re


lizes all options we identified, then considers the potential implications of these options through two different lenses. First, we consider, “How might this policy choice affect the stakeholders?” Second, we consider, “Who bears responsibility, and


the FAA would likely choose to continue their current level of involvement in those processes.
If the moratorium is extended, industry would have a longer period over which it might expect to retain some level of independence over its designs and ope


el, potentially crippling the industry.58 Notwithstanding this, there was also wide agreement and understanding that, given the inherently dangerous nature of space opera- tions and activities, it is highly likely that such accidents will occur in th


 and other safety efforts.
Another option is for Congress to mandate that the FAA implement regulations by a spe- cific date or once a specific industry metric is reached. Depending on the immediacy of the mandate, the FAA may issue one or more ANPRM


oratorium, allowing the moratorium to end would affect some stake- holders in important ways while leaving other issues unchanged. The FAA would gain the ability to pursue regulations pursuant to participant safety, although it is unlikely that chang


rather than reflecting any level of distrust or animosity. However, one interviewee suggested that there was a risk that the FAA’s focus on aviation might overshadow efforts to regulate commercial space travel and that the industry might be better se


sarily harmful to the industry. Focusing on per- formance standards rather than prescriptive standards is important to avoid unnecessar- ily dissuading the future pursuit of creative designs and operations and to provide equal accommodation to the hi


vor of the expiration of the moratorium was not the need for immediate regulation per se but, rather, the need to enable the FAA to prepare to regulate. Having a regulatory regime in place prior to a severe or fatal injury could shift some (but presu


er 1, 2022, and October 6, 2022.
  65
Assessing the Readiness for Human Commercial Spaceflight Safety Regulations
 Commercial Aviation
The commercial air transportation industry was born out of the need to transport mail in the post–World War I era.


he FAA,” webpage, undated-a.
8 Public Law 75-706, the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938, June 23, 1938.
9 Public Law 85-726, the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, August 23, 1958.
10 FAA, undated-a.
11 Bureau of Transportation Statistics, “TranStats,” webpag


, the FAA requires certificate holders operating under 14 CFR Part 121 to have an administrator- approved Safety Management System in place that defines an organization’s safety objectives. Furthermore, the FAA also requires that airplanes used by op


zed by U.S. Code, Title 49, Section 103, Federal Railroad Administration. Public Law
89-670, Department of Transportation Act, October 15, 1966.
24 49 U.S.C. § 103.
25 49 CFR § 221, 215, 209.
26 49 CFR § 238.441.
27 49 CFR § 238.115(a).
 68
Perspecti


ion has as its statu- tory mission to “foster, promote, and develop the merchant maritime industry.”35 Within the Maritime Administration, the Office of Safety addresses a range of maritime safety topics, including standards development.36 The mariti


rtment of Transportation Federal Highway Administration has statutory responsi- bilities related to the promotion of highway safety.47 Highway safety is regulated under Title 23 CFR, Chapter I and Chapter II. Highways are also regulated by the Nation


and procedures that are regularly subject to regulations to ensure passenger safety. We found that each transpor- tation mode is subject to a set of passenger safety regulations that is configured to address the specific design characteristics, opera


has powerful market incentives to ensure participant safety even in the absence of regulatory oversight. There was wide agree- ment that catastrophic events, even if accidental, could have significant and long-lasting neg- ative impacts on industry


 key metrics supporting those standards, and the consideration of regulations that could serve both industry and participant safety at this time and in the future.
Additionally, we did not find any evidence to suggest that the FAA will necessarily en


 SpARCs might find that certain areas should not be regulated or certain types of regulations (e.g., prescriptive regulations) should not be considered or issued. This flexibility would be beneficial to industry, the FAA, and other stakeholders.
Cont


low it to develop key insights and recommendations across the current stovepiped system. For industry, this would also be an opportunity to learn from other sources in a manner that might expose current blind spots (if they exist); enable the sharing


te] or otherwise reviewed on the record
 76
Recommendations
 Other Issues Beyond the Scope of This Study
We emphasize, based on our analysis, that providing the FAA with sufficient resources is critical to the development of a beneficial and carefull


ndable Launch Vehicle Activities, which directed the Department of Transportation to serve as “lead agency” for “encouraging and facilitating commercial ELV [expendable launch vehicle] activities by the
  1
2
Congressional Research Service, Commercia


authorized to grant licenses and to issue regula- tions specifying launch licensing requirements. The safety of spaceflight participants was not directly addressed in the law, with the government’s regulatory authority instead based
4 Executive Order


t also enacted significant limitations on these same authorities. Con- gress’ findings in the law regarding the future of commercial spaceflight safety regulation give insight into the law’s regulatory approach. Congress recognized the progress of ef


flicting goals of safety and industry progress by stating that safety regulations should be implemented and strengthened over time, as the industry developed and as safety expecta- tions changed. “The regulatory standards governing human space fligh


iting potentially unsafe design elements in advance but were instead restricted to ensuring that elements that had already led to mishaps were not reproduced. They could not limit the use of a certain design feature, for instance, because of an asses


of Transportation to inform pro- spective participants “of any relevant information related to risk or probable loss during each phase of flight.”34 Moreover, the law authorized regulators to establish other “reasonable requirements” for spaceflight


g period, this time until October 1, 2023.39 For the period before the new 2023 end date of the learning period, Congress promoted another approach, short of regulation, for improving participant safety—the use of voluntary standards by the commercia


ished and were included in the 2022 FAA report to Congress.2 We provide a brief overview of each organization.
The American Society for Testing and Materials was formed in 1898 and subsequently changed its name to ASTM International. ASTM Internation


egration of Space Operations into Air Traffic Management
Guide for Fault Tolerance for Occupant Safety of Suborbital Vehicles
New Guide for Occupant Safety of Orbital Vehicles
New Classification for Spacecraft Vehicle Types
New Guide for Flight Contr


pace Safety IDA-STPI Institute for Defense Analyses Science and Technology Policy Institute ISO International Organization for Standardization
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NPR


rsonnel, ASTM International, January 6, 2022. As of February 3, 2023: https://www.astm.org/f3520-21.html
95
Assessing the Readiness for Human Commercial Spaceflight Safety Regulations
 ASTM F3550-22, Standard Guide for Classifying Safety-Related Even


ker, February 26, 2019. As of December 13, 2022: https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/2021-11/ New-Safety-Framework-for-Commercial-Human-Space-Flight-Completed-report.pdf
96
Bibliography
 Circular No. A-4, “Regulatory Analysis,” U.S. Office of Man


s and Operators for Compensation or Hire: Certification and Operations, Part 121, Operating Requirements: Domestic, Flag, and Supplemental Operations, Section 121.343, Flight Data Recorders.
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 14, Aeronautics and Spac


nistration and Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation.
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 23, Highways, Chapter III, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation.
Code of Federal Regulation, Title


al Regulations, Title 49, Transportation, Subtitle B, Other Regulations Relating to Transportation, Chapter II, Federal Railroad Administration, Department of Transportation, Part 238, Passenger Equipment Safety Standards, Section 238.115, Emergency


ion, Chapter V, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, Part 571, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, Subpart B, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Transportation,


lez, and Nupur Nanda, The Appalachia Partnership Initiative’s Investments in Education, Workforce Development, and the Community: Technical Appendixes, RAND Corporation, RR-2017/1-CHC, 2017. As of December 10, 2022: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research


/about/budget
101
Assessing the Readiness for Human Commercial Spaceflight Safety Regulations
 Federal Aviation Administration, Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee Charter, undated-d. As of February 1, 2023: https://www.faa.gov/sites/f


t Program Report to COMSTAC, Commercial Space Transportation, May 2008b. As of February 3, 2023: https://www.faa.gov/space/legislation_regulation_guidance/media/ EP_Report_to_COMSTAC.pdf
Federal Aviation Administration, Recommended Practices for Huma


uman Commercial Spaceflight Safety Regulations
 Federal Aviation Administration, “Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing Program,” webpage, April 8, 2019b. As of February 3, 2023: https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/aviation-safety-information-ana


 Pushed Back to April 2023,” Bloomberg, November 3, 2022a.
104
Bibliography
 Grush, Loren, “Virgin Galactic Says Commercial Space Flights on Track for Second Quarter,” Bloomberg, November 3, 2022b.
Grush, Loren, “Jeff Bezos’s Blue Origin Expects Laun


nts, International Organization for Standardization, June 2018. As of February 3, 2023:
https://www.iso.org/standard/72864.html
ISO 16726:2018, Space Systems—Human-Life Activity Support Systems and Equipment Integration in Space Flight—Techno-Medical


e Future of Space Tourism, Congressional Research Service, August 28, 2020. As of February 3, 2023:
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46500
Kipping, David, Christian Johnson, Sho Nakanose, Pete Worden, Ishii Yasuo, Bonnie L. Triezenberg,


and%20reentry%20regulations%20into%20a%20single%20part%20450)
NASA—See National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 107
Assessing the Readiness for Human Commercial Spaceflight Safety Regulations
 National Aeronautics and Space Administration, “Hum


ry 31, 2023:
https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-main-public/sr-details/A-15-025
108
Bibliography
 National Transportation Safety Board, Safety Recommendation A-15-026, August 4, 2015g. As of January 31, 2023:
https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-main-public/sr-detai


r Safety Improvement Act of 1999, December 9, 1999.
Public Law 108-492, Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004, December 24, 2004. Public Law 111-134, National and Commercial Space Programs, December 18, 2010.
Public Law 112-95, FAA Moderniza


 Government Organization and Employees, Chapter 7, Judicial Review.
U.S. Code, Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, Section 553, Rulemaking.
U.S. Code, Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, Section 706, Scope of Review.
U.S. Code


U.S. House of Representatives, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, Agriculture, Rural Development, Energy and Water Development, Financial Services and General Government, Interior, Environment, Military Construction, and Veterans Affairs


and whether
the industry has matured such that areas identified in FAA reports
are ready for regulatory action. The Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness
Act of 2015 imposes a moratorium on safety regulations until October 1, 2023.
The FAA will be


Evaluability Assessment and Evaluation Options for an Elder Abuse Shelter Model
SIERRA SMUCKER, JIRKA TAYLOR, IVY TODD, EMILY HOCH, MONIQUE MARTINEAU, DEVEN CLARK, MEAGAN CAHILL, ESTHER M. FRIEDMAN
Sponsored by the National Institute of Justice
 CORP


and Jeanette Weinberg Center for Elder Justice in New York City, has emerged as a promising intervention to support and protect victims of elder abuse. There are no rigorous evaluations of the EAS model. This model is based on nursing home placement,


ed in New York City (NYC) inside the Hebrew Home at Riverdale, developed an elder abuse shelter (EAS) that combines multidisciplinary team efforts with emergency housing, both of which have been identified as promising practices in the preven- tion o


number of clients is largely because of the Center’s admissions and exclusion criteria, such as substance abuse and mental health conditions, and the requirement for a discharge plan on admission.
• Clientsmostlyidentifyaswomen,areethnicallyandracial


 individuals experiencing cognitive decline. Researchers should consider consulting experts in all these areas when implementing their evaluation of an EAS.
Recommendations
Because the Weinberg Center is largely ready to embark on an evaluation, its


Sources Returned by Search and Screening Process....................................................... 8 3.1 WeinbergCenterReferredandAdmittedClientDemographics(2020–2021)........................ 16 4.1 PIERToolScoringDomains,Subdomains,andSelected


ere will be a corresponding growth in the need for services to prevent EM and for inter- ventions in cases in which it has already occurred. However, despite a National Research Council call for rigorous evaluations of EM prevention and intervention


er adult safely in the community.1 The Hebrew Home at Riverdale is a nonprofit, faith-based long-term care community in the Bronx. Clients receive a full complement of medical attention and rehabilitation services to meet their needs, including skill


gths and resilience of clients in the context of their environments and communities; and endorsing trauma-informed principles in agencies through support, consultation, and supervision of staff” (Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, 2014).
 2
Introd


tsteps.
• Appendixes A–D summarize the data collection tools used and the detailed outcomes of our literature
review that are summarized in the main text.
Changes in Approach from Original Design
Our original design included developing fidelity measu


s the researchers to discern whether a change in participant outcomes is because of the program’s planned impact or more likely because of another factor.
In Chapter 3 of this report, we summarize the findings of our formative evaluation of the Weinb


presented in Chapter 4. Appendix D provides a complete list of factors included in the PIER report and the scores the Weinberg Center EAS received.
Options for Evaluation Designs
As the introductory chapter outlined, there is a dearth of rigorous eva


 interview process took place in tandem with another project that our team conducted with the Weinberg Center
to minimize the burden on staff (see Smucker et al., 2021, for details)
 6
Data Collection and Analysis
 us with information about possible


ature Review
We conducted a review of the literature to inform our suggested evaluation designs. Our search broadly aimed to capture existing evaluations of shelter models with the intention of drawing on these examples for approaches to identifying


h column corresponding to various categories of information to extract. Researchers also reviewed bibliographies of included articles for any potentially relevant material but did not find any additional relevant items. The findings from this review


buse, increase the number of intervention efforts and shelters for older adults, and promote empowered aging and elder justice.
Figure 3.1 presents a visual depiction of the program goals in the form of a logic model. It details the fol- lowing compo


cal services through Hebrew Home staff
Reduced personal and societal health costs
Improved quality of life Increase in life expectancy
Improved mental health outcomes
Decreased rate of hospitalizations and emergency department use
                EAS


budget, and actual costs to implement the model was outside the scope of this evaluability assessment but should be included in any future evaluations to assess replicability and sustainability.
Staffing, Services, and Engagement with Clients and Com


nthecommunity)
– follow-up with clients at 30, 60, and 90 days after moving into the community and report back to Weinberg Center staff
– provideclientswithsupportivecounseling,advocacy,andreferralstoappropriatecommunity-based resources.
These staff


rements that a potential client must meet before entering the EAS. First, the EAS is not equipped to support individuals with untreated mental health or substance misuse issues. Thus, individuals with untreated mental health or substance misuse issue


nberg Center will not accept self-referrals or referrals from family members or friends.
 13
Evaluability Assessment and Evaluation Options for an Elder Abuse Shelter Model
 to discuss the client’s legal needs. Much of the work is geared toward pavin


they need it. A Transitional Care Social Worker engages with the Center on a per diem basis to support the transition of clients back into the community. One staff member described this role as “checking in with clients regularly over those first we


1 0
9 15 22 0
12 1 1
Evaluability Assessment and Evaluation Options for an Elder Abuse Shelter Model
 TABLE 3.1
Weinberg Center Referred and Admitted Client Demographics (2020–2021)
 2020
Referrals 51 Admissions 17 Admitted clients
Average age 77 Fem


r and there are significant medical or health-related concerns. Weinberg Center staff note that this policy is one of the most common reasons referred individuals do not become clients of the center.
Training
The Weinberg Center does not use a formal


violence within the home, fewer victims felt safe or were able to come forward to obtain help during the pandemic’s stay-at-home orders (Smucker, Revitsky-Locker,
17
Evaluability Assessment and Evaluation Options for an Elder Abuse Shelter Model
 and


uated over time.
Staff emphasized the strong integration of the Weinberg Center with NYC’s overall response to EM. Weinberg Center staff participate in multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) established by the city to deal with complex cases of abuse. The Ce


hat are critical to successful program implementation and evaluation (Bar- wick, 2011; Kaufman-Levy et al., 2003). The overarching criteria used to evaluate the Weinberg Center’s EAS consisted of organizational readiness, which focuses on organizatio


sment
           84%
Organization readiness
77%
Average score
82%
Program readiness
43%
Evaluation readiness
Key Findings of the Evaluability Assessment Organizational Readiness
Overall, the Weinberg Center scored 84 percent on organizational readine


Our conversations with several key Weinberg Center partners—including APS, local hospital staff who screen for elder abuse, the NYC District Attorney’s Office, NYC Family Justice Centers, the NYC Department for the Aging (DFTA), community aging grou


, the staffs’ goals for the client reflect a mix of standard outcomes (e.g., improved or stabilized health) and the client’s own goals (e.g., returning to the community). To achieve its goals, the Weinberg Center has activities that include client-ce


wledged that they have struggled to recruit clients in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, and they appreciate that there are reasons beyond COVID-19 that might decrease the likelihood that victims opt to use their services. The staff is making effort


ions documented with the support of professional research partners.
25
CHAPTER 5
Evaluation Designs
In this chapter, we outline three evaluation designs that could assess the impact of the Weinberg Center’s EAS and other EASs on clients. First, we de


 None of the sources we reviewed evaluated shelter models for people experiencing elder abuse.
The sources used a variety of evaluation designs. Two drew on data from RCTs and ten from quasi- experimental designs, including propensity score matching,


the time of the intervention. We recommend using the Weinberg Center Risk and Abuse Prevention Screen (WC-RAPS)—a validated instrument that is also available in Spanish—to determine whether a person is at risk or has been abused since the last assess


wer assessment
Client survey or caregiver/ interviewer assessment
Client survey or caregiver/ interviewer assessment
Survey with client or caregiver/ secondary data (Medicare or Medicaid)
Survey with client or caregiver/ secondary data (Medicare or M


pared shelter care as usual with a critical time intervention for people experiencing either homeless- ness or intimate partner violence. Participants in both the treatment and control conditions received shelter services (Lako et al., 2013; Lako et


ant study would exam- ine the impact of including an EAS in a long-term care facility on nursing staff who might find it stressful to support individuals experiencing elder abuse. However, our narrower goal here is to establish the impact of the inte


t to factors that could introduce bias (e.g., case complexity, risk, mental and physical health). With this information, the Center and the evaluation team would be able to consider whether such factors affect the results of the evaluation.3
To ensur


 used to determine whether additional services are needed for different groups of clients, potentially including the equitability of service provision.
We estimate that this study would require (1) three doctoral researchers, four midlevel researcher


n situations with an extreme baseline. It is important to recognize, however, that the numbers in the table represent the samples needed for the analysis. Given the likely drop-off of some participants during the study, the number of participants it


WANG would allow researchers to more easily develop the correct weights for the treat- ment (Weinberg Center clients) and control (individuals in secondary data source) groups in the analysis.
At minimum, this approach could answer whether, in compar


s means the length of follow-up will vary across individuals, and this length will correlate strongly with the complexity and severity of the case. One solution to this problem would be to develop an assessment of typical risk among Weinberg Center c


rg Center’s EAS, others use multiple long-term care facilities to house clients), comparing outcomes across the Weinberg Center’s EAS and another SPRiNG Alliance member’s EAS could indicate which model is best suited to which type of elder abuse. How


ing on how long different elements take.
Option 3: Pre- and Post-Evaluation Design
Our third recommended design is a pre- and post-evaluation design. Instead of a separate comparison group, this approach uses a baseline measurement of clients as the


re (1) three PhD researchers, four midlevel researchers, and a junior staff member; (2) between 320 and 350 labor days over four to six years; (3) the cost of support for Weinberg Center staff collecting follow-up data and survey design (two staff me


Evaluators
Working with Victims of Elder Abuse
It is important to emphasize that conducting research with individuals experiencing cognitive decline can be difficult. Because victims of elder abuse are often also experiencing cognitive issues, resear


id not receive Weinberg Center services
Total sample for control group will vary based on secondary data source but best comparable example used more than 33,000 entries
One group:
200+ Weinberg Center clients (sample not split into treatment and con


internal data processes for
collection and secure storage •
• Identify needs for external data
• Submit study design for Human Subjects Review Board review
• Develop process for delivering compensa- tion to participants
•
•
2–4 years 1 year 6 months


a robust data storage plan. Moreover, because this study includes subjects that are highly vulnerable (according to National Institutes of Health guidance) there might be value in implementing an independent data safety monitoring board to ensure the


arch on EM to include a quali- tative interview portion where possible. However, as we outline above, this is particularly important when conducting nonexperimental evaluation designs, as the information can be used to triangulate and give greater co


comprehensive evaluation was initiated. There are limited systematic data collection efforts around outcomes. Moreover, the data we collected on SPRiNG Alliance recruitment and admission suggest that these organizations would struggle to recruit eno


g Center logic model, and consultation with key stakeholders, we believe that any evaluation of the EAS model should investigate its impact on (1) impact on client health outcomes (mental and physical), (2) legal outcomes, (3) risk factors for abuse,


is. I’ll be leading our conversation today, and we’re joined by [name], who is also taking notes while we talk so we can capture all of the important details we discuss today.
The purpose of the study is to document the [organization’s] model and ser


n] looks like for you?
Client Engagement and Needs
Thank you. We would like to start by understanding more about [organization]’s clients and their needs.
1. What is the typical process of engagement for a new client? Can you walk us through the time


sical health (probe for examples)
d. Ability to make care decisions
e. Ability to age in the setting they desire
there other benefits to clients?
there some clients who do not benefit as much?
a. Why?
b. Who are they?
4. Do clients ever come back to


mentioned, [name] is taking notes. We also would like to record our conversation today so that we don’t miss anything you say. The recordings help us supplement our notes after our discussion. All notes and recordings will be destroyed at the end of


are able to address
them?
a. Housing needs
b. Health care needs
c. Legal needs
d. Needs for therapy
e. Needs for other social services
f. Other?
5. In your opinion, if clients had not been connected with [organization] for services, where would they


 updated?
b. Are data made publicly available (probe: if not, do they ever make them available to researchers,
others upon request)?
3. Do you ever learn about how a client is doing after discharge/cessation of services?
a. How?
b. Is this informatio


ing—Google Scholar searches (2010 to June 2021, terms in title)
GS Search 1
“elder abuse” AND (evidence OR data OR information OR proof OR knowledge OR evaluate or evalua- tion OR effective OR assess OR assessment OR review OR estimate OR estimating


nd Security
CHANA
Petaluma People Services Center
ElderSafe
Jewish Senior Services
Lifespan Rochester
Referrals
Admissions Referrals
Admissions Referrals
Admissions Referrals Admissions Referrals
Admissions Referrals
Admissions Referrals Admissions R


rmed practice 1 Committed to data-driven decisionmaking 1
59
Table D.1—Continued
Domain
Organizational readiness
Organizational readiness
Organizational readiness
Organizational readiness
Organizational readiness Organizational readiness
Organization


ess
Program readiness
Program readiness
Evaluation readiness
Evaluation readiness Evaluation readiness
Subdomain
Implementation: processes and procedures
Implementation: processes and procedures
Implementation: processes and procedures
Implementation


omain
Quasi-experimental design
Quasi-experimental design
Program enrollment (of clients)
Data collection
Criteria Score
Potential to identify comparison group that is feasible (no 1 “spill-over” of services, selected before services begin)
Descripti


derabuse/fastfact.html
Clinical Social Work Association, “New York Clinical Social Work Licensure (LCSW-R),” webpage, undated. As of February 28, 2023:
https://www.clinicalsocialworkassociation.org/Legislative-Alerts/7558791
Damschroder, Laura J., Da


Penny Rapaport, Martin Knapp, Mark Griffin, Derek King, Debbie Livingston, Cath Mummery, Zuzana Walker, Juanita Hoe, Elizabeth L. Sampson, and Claudia Cooper, “Clinical Effectiveness of a Manual Based Coping Strategy Programme (START, STrAtegies for


Tony, Alyssa Elman, Sarah Dion, Diana Delgado, Michelle Demetres, Risa Breckman, Kristin Lees, Kim Dash, Debi Lang, Alice Bonner, Jason Burnett, Carmel B. Dyer, Rani Snyder, Amy Berman, Terry Fulmer, Mark S. Lachs, and National Collaboratory to Addr


n H. Wilber, “Toward a Better Understanding of the Elder Abuse Forensic Center Model: Comparing and Contrasting Four Programs in California,” Journal of Elder Abuse and Neglect, Vol. 31, No. 4–5, 2019.
67


  CORPORATION
LAURA WHITAKER, SIERRA SMUCKER, STEPHANIE BROOKS HOLLIDAY
A Gap Analysis of the Los Angeles County Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act Portfolio
In 2000, the California State Legislature passed the Schiff-Cardenas Crime Prevention Act


tization of neighbor- hoods, schools, and other areas with high rates of juvenile crime
• a strategy to provide a continuum of gradu- ated responses to juvenile crime (County of Los Angeles, 2020).
Each year, counties submit their annual plans to BSC


nsive Multi-Agency Juvenile
Justice Plan FY fiscal year
JJCC Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council
JJCPA Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act
LGBTQ+ Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer/
Questioning+
RDA Resource Development Associates
 2
JJCP


 request to apply for JJCPA funding to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors for approval.
Board-approved JJCPA application (with attached CMJJP) submitted to BSCC.
Approximate Timelinea July to September
July to September
July to September Aug


er a targeted review for best practices and key components of high-quality and comprehensive juvenile justice systems that should guide the service delivery model and imple- mentation of the JJCPA services and supervision.
We took a two-pronged strat


rtfolio of funded programs. The survey had questions related to the optimal distribution of funds across the con- tinuum of services and the extent to which members consider several factors when making funding deci- sions, including the best practice


(Dowden and Andrews, 1999). For this reason, this practice also includes making a continuum of services available, from prevention to intervention programs.
(2) Use a youth development approach
A youth development approach emphasizes the need
to cura


y to continue
to have contact with the juvenile justice system, and Black youth, in particular, are more likely to get rear- rested after their first arrest despite similar levels of reoffending among their White peers (Mitchell, 2005; Onifade et al.


espond to our request).
In the second phase, we randomly selected addi- tional JJCC members based on two criteria: (1) to bal- ance representation of each group because response rates across groups in the first phase was not equal, and (2) to target


embers become members of the CMJJP Ad-Hoc Subcommittee. For the development of the FY 2020– 2021 plan, the Ad-Hoc Subcommittee consisted of
seven JJCC members from community-based orga- nizations and six JJCC members from government agencies. The Ad-


uded
Not explicitly included
Requests information about evidence base of proposed program or project
Not explicitly included
JJCC-CAC Youth Service Needs Assessment and Community Feedback
Survey item included about areas of most need
Not directly ass


 this funding strategy, less explicit attention is paid to the risk level or spe- cific needs of youth, which is another aspect of this best practice.
Both the (1) application of a racial equity frame- work and (2) use of evidence-based practices and


hlights that “youth and children are part of family units” and that a focus on “family empowerment opportunities” is key (p. 22). However, there is not much specificity about the vision for supporting families.
Finally, three best practices receive v


ptions of their programs; however, the Recom- mended Format for Governmental Partner Funding Request does not explicitly seek that submissions include detail on the other best practices.
JJCC-CAC Youth Service Needs Assessment
The JJCC-CAC is respons


n about new or novel programs that address the best practices. There are some ways in which the pro- cess may solicit relevant information. We reviewed this request to determine whether any information about the best practices is solicited. The reque


r- vices operate from a youth development framework. It is also noteworthy that at least three-quarters of respondents endorsed considering most of these fac- tors often or always. Only three factors did not reach this threshold: whether the program


ing with funded agencies occurs. In this section, we review themes related to both best practices and the funding process. Findings were largely based on interviews with JJCC members, although information provided
by Probation Department stakeholders


se kinds of discussions at the JJCC level. It’s largely—there needs to be a vote on this thing, there needs to be a decision, we get together someone presents, we come back and make a decision on those things.”
“[I]t’s difficult to get the families i


distribution reflected such factors as (1) the need to address all three areas, (2) the relatively new process of allocating funds to intentionally allocated buckets, and (3) the lack of data to support a shift in any one direction.
 15
Best Practice


rtance of ensur- ing that programs provide trauma-informed care when making funding-allocation decisions. However, interviewees revealed that trauma-informed prac- tices rarely are discussed at JJCC meetings. Although individuals might consider the i