hows changes in depths to groundwater in the future during the wet season for the middle SLR scenario and average precipitation conditions for Broward. The red regions on the coast show the impact that SLR will have on changes in depth to groundwater


odels. To keep our base case as close to the published USGS results as possible, we maintained the USGS assumptions about future pumping. We were unable to run scenarios with varying pumping rates to explore the differ- ences between the two models w


nd by the perspective of a planner, Figure 5.7 enables the user to adjust the threshold. These results show the far southwest and southwest regions of Broward have the largest sensitivity in terms of areas with low depths to groundwa- ter. The variat


s are vulnerable, we combined the depth to groundwater with estimates of current assets and projections of future assets in the following sections.
Asset Values at Risk
We next estimated the value of assets that are vulnerable to groundwater flooding


t, and southwest Broward all have high numbers of grid points with vulnerable assets between $1 million and $5 million. The highest concentration of high-value vulnerable assets is in the northeast and north-central Broward regions, as seen in the ma


 precipitation future to 23.
Figure 5.14 summarizes the vulnerability of asset values across the precipitation and SLR futures for UMD.1 The results are organized so that precipitation and SLR increase from left to right. The horizontal lines cutting


nstant at current levels. The yellow bars show the percentage change in vulnerable assets due to changes in asset value between now and the 2040 time frame. For these results as well, depths to groundwater are held constant at current levels. The gra


and Water Management Plans to a Changing Climate
Figure 5.15
Disaggregated Groundwater Flooding Vulnerability for the Elevation Method
Broward (TAZ asset method/UMD: Elevation asset method)
Model SLR
Broward Low
Precipitation
Driest Dry Avg Wet Wette


h SLR. The results for the elevation method (not shown) indicate more-dispersed asset-driven vulnerability for both futures.
60 Adapting Land Use and Water Management Plans to a Changing Climate
Figure 5.17
Drivers of Vulnerability to Groundwater Flo


ment Plan
Broward: Above 5 feet
Miami-Dade: Above 8 feet (along ridge)
Broward: Along 2035 long-range transportation projects Miami-Dade: Along SMART plan
Reorient development away from high-vulnerability areas
Fill is used to raise existing developm


ach. These coastal areas will also face risks from flooding caused by rising tides, which is not addressed in this research. These areas are strong candidates for Strategies 4 (cut and fill) and 5 (increase pumping and drainage).
In UMD, the future v


t increases the horizontal water pressure difference between the ocean and groundwater in the Biscayne Aquifer. Increased rainfall on land and infiltration into the aquifer act to freshen groundwater, raise the water table, and push the interface bac


levels above 1,000 mg/L. For these two futures, chloride levels in nearly all wells in the Hollywood, Dania, and Dixie well fields exceed safe drinking water standards (e.g., >250 mg/L).
To summarize effects across the region, Figure 6.3 depicts the


with projected high chloride concentrations, all are projected to have chloride levels below 1 mg/L.
Key Findings
Saltwater intrusion is not projected to impact groundwater wells in UMD through the 2040 time frame. However, it has the potential to im


 on high-value coastal development but also on some inland areas. The analysis further demon- strated the importance of looking at a wide range of possible future conditions to understand the range of possible outcomes within the region.
As is always


eas of the county, providing an opportunity for adaptation to accompany future development in these areas. Vulnerability to increased groundwater flooding hazards could affect more than $2 billion of future assets; however, $900 million of these asse


le assets in the region in futures that are vulnerable to SLR and changing patterns of rainfall. However, because our initial analysis accounts only for private building assets, important drivers of economic risk related to economic activity generate


alibrated multipliers (Table A.2) to rep- resent changes in land use over time across the Broward model extent. According to Hughes, Sifuentes, and White (2016), these multipliers generally increase in time, consistent with lower groundwater levels u


1 percent different). This finding justified our choice to not explicitly change land use codes in the model; rather, we simply overlaid future land use patterns and future hydrological output (using historical land use codes in the model) in the ana


tels
Improved agricultural
Insurance company offices
Leasehold interests (government-owned property leased by a nongovernmental lessee) Light manufacturing
Lumber yards, sawmills, planing mills Military
Mineral processing, phosphate processing, cemen


story
Subsurface rights
Supermarkets
Tourist attractions, permanent exhibits, other entertainment facilities, fairgrounds (privately owned)
Utility, gas and electricity, telephone and telegraph, locally assessed railroads, water and sewer service, pi


ban low density Urban low density Urban medium density Urban medium density Urban low density Urban medium density Urban medium density Urban low density
  84 Adapting Land Use and Water Management Plans to a Changing Climate
Table B.3—Continued
Brow


sidential 6–13 DU/AC Medium-density residential 13–25 DU/AC
Medium-high density residential 25–60 DU/AC
Office or residential
Persons per Cell
215
430 12,888 537 644 1,504 2,792 5,370 537
Value per Cell (2015 $)
51,205,048 67,241,768 184,800,000 55,9


rporation, MG-679-CTRMP, 2007. As of April 3, 2018:
https://w w w.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG679.html
DOR—See Florida Department of Revenue.
Engineer Regulation 1100-2-8162, Incorporating Sea Level Change in Civil Works Programs, Washington D.C.: U.S


rg/pubs/research_reports/RR437.html
Groves, David G., Robert J. Lempert, Debra Knopman, and Sandra H. Berry, Preparing for an Uncertain Future Climate in the Inland Empire: Identifying Robust Water Management Strategies, Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Co


Robert Lempert, Casey Brown, Adrian Fozzard, Stuart Gill, and Anku Shah, Agreeing on Robust Decisions: New Processes for Decision Making Under Deep Uncertainty, Washington, D.C.: World Bank, Policy Research Working Paper 6906, 2014. As of April 20,


Good Decisions Without Predictions: Robust Decision Making for Planning Under Deep Uncertainty,” Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, RB-9701, 2013. As of April 3, 2018: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9701.html
Miami-Dade County, “203


theast Florida, Sea Level Rise Work Group, October 2015. As of April 3, 2018:
h t t p : / / w w w . s o u t h e a s t fl o r i d a c l i m a t e c o m p a c t . o r g / w p - c o n t e n t / u p l o a d s / 2 0 15 / 1 0 / 2 0 15 - C o m p a c t - U n


isks. Looking out to the 2040 time frame, the analysis linked two groundwater flow simulation models developed separately for the two counties with a simple economic model of asset values as a function of groundwater levels and the location of the sa


 CORPORATION
Evaluation of the
Return-to-Work Fund in
California’s Workers’
Compensation System
Performance to Date and Options for Modification
 Michael Dworsky, Denise D. Quigley, Stephanie Rennane, Madeline B. Doyle
For more information on this pu


itute for Civil Justice (ICJ) is dedicated to improving the civil justice system by supplying policymakers and the public with rigorous and nonpartisan research. Its studies identify trends in litigation and inform policy choices about liability, com


................................................................................... 57 Take-Up of the RTWSP Among Eligible Workers and Patterns of SJDB Voucher Issuance............... 66 Chapter Seven: Eligible Population and Program Cost Estimates .


......................................................................... 69
Table 7.1. Lower and Upper Bounds for Ultimate RTWSP-Eligible Population per Injury
Year, with Comparison to Assumptions Made Prior to Program Inception ....................


lity to the Supplemental Job Displacement Benefit (SJDB), a voucher-based VR benefit established in 2004 that replaced California’s traditional VR system. Linking the RTWSP to the SJDB leveraged an existing process for identifying workers without a q


ent among workers who received both PPD benefits and the RTWSP. These findings suggest that the RTWSP is targeted to workers who are less likely to return to work and thus may face disproportionate earnings losses. While this study did not include da


.
Legal representation is the factor most strongly associated with take-up of the RTWSP among eligible workers. After controlling for a wide range of other factors, eligible workers with legal representation were more than 40 percentage points more l


ization incentivized by the RTWSP’s design would represent a positive unintended consequence of the choice to tie RTWSP eligibility to the SJDB voucher; higher SJDB utilization was factored into cost projections used to develop the program, but the i


te physicians about their reporting responsibilities could also improve workers’ access to the RTW Supplement. Efforts to educate other injured workers’ advocates about the RTWSP could also increase take-up, but we note that a strategy centered on im


ly increase program take-up, it would be prudent to have a contingency plan for financing payments above $120 million in a given year. Further analysis may also help to identify leading indicators for the volume of applications.
Better Evidence on Ef


e data is needed to assess the RTW Supplement’s full effects on employment outcomes and on benefit adequacy and equity in the context of the current PPD benefit system, the early results presented here are promising.
xvii
xviii
Acknowledgments
We wis


lified medical examiner
return to work
 xxi
RTWSP Return-to-Work Supplement Program SB Senate Bill
SJDB Supplemental Job Displacement Benefit SROI Subsequent Report of Injury
SSDI Social Security Disability Insurance TAG Technical Advisory Group
TTD


he adequacy of indemnity benefits for workers with PPD as a result of workplace injuries and illnesses. Besides modifying the disability rating process and increasing the maximum weekly benefit, SB 863 took the novel approach of creating an additiona


ornia’s RTWSP as we approach the third anniversary of the program’s inception. RAND researchers conducted a mixed-methods evaluation with two key objectives: (1) to evaluate the design and performance of the RTWSP and (2) to identify practices and po


nd B provide qualitative information on the stakeholder interviews and quantitative data, including data sources, methods, and supplementary results.
3
4
Chapter Two: Background and Overview of Study
This chapter provides some background information


 longer, the first three days are covered retroactively.
  5
Most workers who file a workers’ compensation claim do not experience any work absence beyond the three-day waiting period, and thus they receive only medical care. However, three in ten in


 temporary disability benefits.
4 The Workers’ Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau of California (WCIRB), which develops rates for commercial insurers that serve the California market, reports that PPD benefits were 41 percent of total indemnity pay


w states use a “wage loss” approach to PD benefits today. One serious drawback of the wage loss approach is that tying compensation directly to post-injury earnings creates work disincentives that lead to higher disability duration, driving up system


enefits make it a natural focus for legislative efforts to control system costs: While PPD benefits in California currently account for a smaller proportion of total system costs than is the case in many other states, PPD benefits represent roughly o


disability rating system relied on a complex combination of factors to arrive at a disability rating. The pre-2005 disability rating system was marked by a reliance on functional evaluations that attempted to account for individual-level work restri


rates of lost income fell by 26 percent after the reforms (Seabury et al., 2011). Given past evidence showing that California already had questionable benefit adequacy under the old benefit levels (Peterson et al., 1997), there was concern that the


o Permanent Partial Disability Benefits in Senate Bill 863
In September 2012, California adopted SB 863 as an attempt to contain medical costs for injured workers while restoring some of the PPD benefits that had been reduced. The bill made many chan


 2012, about 75 percent of PD workers had earnings above the weekly maximum, while only about 15 percent of PD workers had earnings below the weekly minimum.9
9 For the vast majority of PD workers with ratings below 70, SB 863 raised the maximum week


on observed earnings losses, providing an extra payment to workers who experienced the worst outcomes after injury. However, it is not possible to design a system that compensates workers based directly on post-injury earnings without introducing som


between the generosity of the RTW Supplement and the affordability of the RTWSP. After modeling various possible combinations of these parameters, it was determined that eligible workers who apply would receive a flat, one-time $5,000 payment (the “


chase services or equipment that promotes functional and VR but that either is not covered by workers’ compensation medical benefits or the SJDB or that has costs above the $6,000 cap on the SJDB.
In addition to its primary objective of improving the


he current program design. Other program impacts that are more amenable to study with currently available data are examined later in the report.
The parameters of the RTWSP were based on analysis of historical program trends and estimated earnings lo


, apply for, and receive the RTW Supplement?
• Does the RTWSP accurately target workers “whose permanent disability benefits are
disproportionately low in comparison to their earnings loss”?
• Is the RTWSP vulnerable to fraud and abuse?
• Are barrier


ances for these required reports in 2014. To further our understanding of the operation and design of the RTWSP in California, we reviewed information available online about the RTWSP and the SJDB voucher issuance processes and held focused discussio


holders were then guided through a semistructured interview regarding their experiences with the details of workers’ compensation reporting, the SJDB voucher issuance, and the RTW Supplement benefit issuance process, guided by three slides that were


multiple administrative and public use data sets to provide a comprehensive picture of injured workers who have entered the workers’ compensation system since 2011. around the time of the implementation of the RTWSP. These data sources include the W


ouchers in a series of descriptive statistics and then formalized this analysis in a multivariate logistic regression. We also analyzed several factors to identify behavioral responses that might influence participation. These analyses involved compa


h report or form, the recipients, the event(s) requiring completion or submission of each report or form, and relevant timelines.
Maximum Medical Improvement and the Return to Work & Voucher Report
When an injured worker is determined by their PTP to


hin 20 days
Claims Administrator
Sign and issue SJDB Voucher
    Injured Worker + Attorney
    * Claims administrator: employer’s WC insurance carrier, third-party administrator, or self-insured employer **Information and reports that are shared with


 for miscellaneous expense reimbursement. As noted above, the SJDB is nontransferrable and, for injuries occurring after December 1, 2013, cannot be settled.
Application Process and Eligibility Criteria
As mentioned in Chapter Two, injured workers wh


o obtain the necessary information. Applications with complete information that meet the criteria listed above are passed to one of three approvers for approval processing.
Approval and Payment Issuance
Within 60 days, DIR must review the submitted o


ions for injuries that occurred prior to 2013 (15 percent of ineligible applications). The remaining denials occurred because of other verification issues with the applications.
26
Applicants who resubmit an application following a denial typically d


m
Within 20 days of employer’s failure to provide qualifying RTW offer; at most 80 days after date when RTW & Voucher Report is submitted to employer
Within 12 months of SJDB voucher receipt
 NOTE: DWC = Division of Workers’ Compensation.
28
Applicat


seven days of approval. Overall, this means that 90 percent of applicants receive the RTW Supplement within three weeks of application, and 50 percent of applicants receive the RTW Supplement less than two weeks after application. This is well within


demption, we examined those who received an SJDB payment in the WCIS, meaning that the injured worker cashed in their SJDB voucher. We estimated that the average total payment value was approximately $4,600:15 Just over half (52.5 percent) of workers


esponse to the incentives created by the RTWSP or due to other provisions of the law. Figures 3.6 and 3.7 clearly indicate a sharp increase in SJDB utilization and, for a nonrepresentative convenience sample of claims, SJDB voucher issuance for injur


ders perceive the workers’ compensation process to be a “very litigious process often driven by the applicant’s attorney.” Three stakeholders with direct experience regarding the SJDB issuance process noted that settlement prior to being declared P&S


he California Workers’ Comp System and more to do with the federal ADA—mostly by compliance with FEHA and the ADA.” Three stakeholders also said that employers may issue the SJDB voucher in an effort to terminate an employee (i.e., to get the injured


language that the injured worker is entitled to the supplemental benefit or that an attorney can apply for the benefit on the worker’s behalf. This stakeholder also claimed that settlements occur more often and claims close faster when they are part


stributed to injured workers (two stakeholders).
Eight stakeholders claimed that the RTW program is run “efficiently, with low administrative burden” and “provides cash” and “some sort of benefit to injured workers.” As one stakeholder said, “the sta


tionate earnings loss, some still noted problems with the linkage. As one said, the link between the RTW Supplement and the SJDB voucher “still did not include specific consideration of the lost earnings that are disproportionately compensated by the


dicated that there is value in not permitting the RTW Supplement to be included in settlements, as this reduces transaction costs by limiting the scope for disputes.
These interview findings validate our understanding of the rules and regulations tha


 complete the RTWSP application if they are unable to do so at home.
Nevertheless, several stakeholders mentioned concerns related to access and lack of awareness about the RTW Supplement. Five stakeholders, including attorneys and claims administrat


rk required of the PTP. In such cases, physicians provide information in the MMI Report but do not fill out or submit the RTW & Voucher Report. As a result, fewer SJDB vouchers are issued to those who would otherwise be eligible.
Once they receive do


nistrators for copies of the reports.
Eight stakeholders indicated that “physicians are not paid to complete and submit the RTW & Voucher Report.” In turn, physician stakeholders claimed that the RTW & Voucher report is “time-consuming to complete.”


 area of the [workers’ compensation] system where there’s money involved, there’s fraud involved and someone’s trying to rip off the system”; and the perceptions that “anyone with access to a computer can get the RTW Supplemental benefit.”
Stakeholde


few stakeholders mentioned issues that would contribute to the underissuance of SJDB vouchers. Two stakeholders reported experiences with claims administrators “not signing the voucher or not providing proof of service” (as referred to above) and cla


formation assistance officer in a district office. The program reduces transaction costs by limiting the scope for disputes and by using the SJDB voucher as a mechanism for targeting, albeit somewhat inconsistently. Two additional strengths associate


Report) and claims administrators failing to sign or issue the SJDB voucher. Some stakeholders also noted that the RTWSP does not distinctly promote return-to-work outcomes and suggested that DIR should rename the program to better align with its ob


ience sample of claims administrators, and several auxiliary datasets from public sources.
This wide variety of data sources is necessary to address the broad range of research questions posed in this study. In combination, these data sources allow u


rs’ Compensation Information System
target
target
target
the
 The WCIS is a database of workers’ compensation claims maintained by the DWC within DIR. The WCIS covers essentially all workers’ compensation payers in the California system, making it th


sources other than the WCIS are PD ratings, legal representation status, and issuance of SJDB vouchers.
Reliable data on receipt of benefits and other milestones in the history of the claim are necessary to define sensible comparison groups for recip


2017. Each record represents a completed online application that was submitted to the RTWSP.19 In addition to the application date and information about the injury that was reported in the RTWSP application, these data capture whether the application


SJDB voucher. While the WCIS provides information about SJDB utilization (i.e., cases in which individuals redeemed their SJDB vouchers to pay for VR services, education and training, computers, or other services and equipment covered by the SJDB), v


the population of residents in a given zip code who speak English very well and the population of residents speaking other languages, including Spanish, Chinese, Tagalog, Korean, and Vietnamese. We used these variables to identify zip codes with rel


to reach MMI, receive a voucher, and apply for the RTWSP. Our analysis of targeting focuses on differences between workers with and without the RTW Supplement, so we performed comparisons that effectively controlled for the claim maturity (i.e., the


Who is eligible, applies for, and receives the RTWSP? To analyze take-up of the RTWSP and to estimate the size of the RTWSP-eligible population, we had to identify a sample of eligible workers, meaning those in receipt of an SJDB voucher for injuries


on permanently disabled workers with 2013–2014 injury dates (the PPD sample described in Chapter Five) to address two broad research questions:
1. How do RTW Supplement recipients compare to other PPD workers in terms of demographics, job characteris


661 per week in real 2017 dollars, compared with an average wage of $813 per week for other workers with PD. RTWSP claimants are also more likely to live in zip codes where fewer residents speak English well and more likely to live in zip codes with


Supplement recipients are less likely to work in self-insured firms prior to injury, which likely reflects the fact that larger firms (including public-sector employers) are both more likely to self-insure and may be more able to provide accommodati


tal TTD payment received by all other beneficiaries with indemnity payments. Thus, while supplement recipients receive much higher benefit payments than nonrecipients, the difference in total disability duration strongly suggests that these benefit p


live in zip codes with low English-language ability and low internet connection rates, are more likely to work in manufacturing or certain high-turnover industries, and are less likely to work in public administration or education. RTW Supplement rec


fferent points in time relative to receipt of other benefit types. Most workers receive the benefit within one year of ending their TTD benefits and beginning PPD payments, again consistent with overall program guidelines that workers become eligible


losses are maximized, which might seem to suggest that RTWSP recipients’ ratings are too high to be consistent with optimal targeting. In fact, Dworsky et al.’s estimates indicated that workers with ratings above 30 (under the anticipated SB 863 rati


he injury, by about 19 percentage points of what the workers would have earned if uninjured. The comparison reported by Reville et al. (2005) was conducted between workers with the same disability rating (under the pre-2005 PDRS), and so this evidenc


7. No RTWSP applications were submitted by workers in the voucher RTW sample who were issued vouchers in Q2 2013 or Q4 2013, yielding a take-up rate of zero in these quarters.
We next estimated a series of multivariate logistic regression models to c


tes for a pooled model that combines data from all participating claims administrators. We also estimated models stratified by claims administrator and did not find evidence that predictors of voucher issuance differed substantially from the overall


tential barriers to participation (e.g., language ability and internet access) were not significant factors in take-up
Covariate with a Significant Impact on Voucher Issuance or RTWSP Take-Up
Settled claim
MMI date reported
Settled claim and MMI date


re of our convenience sample, additional estimates reported in Appendix B show that similar unadjusted patterns are evident in our convenience sample as well.
To sum up, the behavior of workers observed in a convenience sample of SJDB voucher recipie


ration is that the RTWSP has operated during a period of steady economic expansion and falling unemployment rates; the next economic downturn might affect the size of the eligible population through changing return-to-work rates and several other cha


Relations, DIR staff estimated the take-up rate of the RTWSP using data available in house at DIR through the end of February 2017. To proxy for RTWSP eligibility, DIR used the WCIS to identify workers who had redeemed the full $6,000 value of the SJ


take-up rate. In the first three quarters of 2017, the RTWSP received applications from 12,630 unique injured workers. If applications continue at the same rate in the last quarter of the year, this suggests that 16,840 applications would be receive


estone, leading to concerns about right-censoring in the available data. However, the proportion of PPD claims with paid SJDB amounts in the WCIS remains at 5.0 percent for 2014 injuries despite the fact that 2014 claims are more likely to be subject


f PD claims with qualifying return-to-work offers reported to the insurer by 28 months after injury. Between the 2010 and 2014 injury years, this proportion ranged between 16 percent and 21 percent, a rate that would seem to imply that as many as fou


ake a somewhat conservative assumption that those without an MMI date reported would not have received a voucher, we obtain an estimate of 40.6 percent of permanently disabled workers who might potentially be eligible to receive an SJDB voucher, trig


an alternative, we estimate the total number of ultimate indemnity claims in the WCIS by applying WCIRB development factors to the number of indemnity claims observed to date. We then assume that 50 percent of indemnity claims ultimately result in PD


ta on covered employment at self-insured employers would overstate the number of indemnity claims if self-insured employers had lower indemnity claim rates than fully insured employers, which appears to be the case in the WCIS.
43 Authors’ calculatio


rsed could be up to three times as high, or $292.2 million. We stress that this level assumes that all potentially SJDB- eligible workers are issued a voucher, that the ultimate number of PPD injuries is at the higher
44 We cannot know that all claim


 required DIR to translate crucial workers’ compensation forms and notices into additional languages beyond English and Spanish.
Without data on a cohort of injuries that has fully worked its way through the system, we instead provide descriptive evi


ensoring. For example, the maximum time to application for 2016 injuries was set to nine months to allow nine full months under observation for the last injury dates in 2016.
However, Figure 7.3 also makes clear that the time needed to establish the


 sustained rapid growth in SJDB payments and the number of PD workers with incurred SJDB, largely reflect SJDB receipt by workers injured before the RTWSP was established. There is no evidence indicating that the
84
growth of the RTWSP-eligible popul


ch year’s assessment in order to cover the previous calendar year’s RTW Supplement payments.
If the RTW Fund can be replenished each year by adjusting the assessment above or below $120 million annually, solvency would not appear to be a conceptually


more stable than the rate of low-severity claims. Research by Boone et al. (2011) shows that the pro-cyclicality of workers’ compensation claim rates is driven less by changes in safety over the business cycle than by the fact that workers with lower


 eligibility over the business cycle than changes in covered employment.
 47 These estimates are percentages of the employment rate for uninjured workers, which is well below 100 percent. Only seven in ten workers in the uninjured control group remai


ease in SJDB voucher issuance observed so far under SB 863 would limit how much further the rate of SJDB voucher issuance could potentially increase as economic conditions change.
Given this discussion, we estimate that any cyclicality in the size of


data on incurred PD would be needed to answer this question.
 89
and payment volumes so that the department can rapidly identify the emergence of any major changes in program costs.
90
Chapter Eight: Policy Options to Improve the RTWSP and Related Pr


Chapter Four. We did not find strong evidence that low take-up was associated with indicators of socioeconomic vulnerability, such as low wages, or hypothesized barriers to access, such as language ability, internet access, or distance from DWC field


 treated as a “change in benefit status”
92
warranting mandatory reporting. At present, claims administrators are required to transmit an SROI to WCIS within 15 days of the initial payment of any type of indemnity benefit. However, there is currently


ly, however, then the number of workers who might change address before receiving the RTW Supplement check will tend to increase over time. This is likely a minor concern given DIR’s demonstrated ability to process applications, verify recipients (an


ims administrators on SJDB voucher issuance.
DIR would also need to think through the program integrity implications of making the RTW Supplement an automatic payment triggered by notification from the claims administrator. The current application pr


to implement automatic payment of the RTW Supplement, we strongly recommend that DIR develop a strategy for monitoring SJDB voucher issuance and verifying that SJDB vouchers are being properly issued to all workers who receive the RTW Supplement. DIR


ders felt that email and other electronic communication methods are underutilized by claims administrators. While we did not find that internet access was associated with take-up of the RTW Supplement by eligible workers, we did not have individual-l


involve raising the value of the supplement (either for all workers or for those more likely to experience disproportionate earnings losses), restricting eligibility to a smaller group of workers without successful return to work, or changing the su


the first several years of a claim are likely to result from temporary disability, and they recommended using data from the fourth full year after injury to measure long-term earnings losses. In contrast, we found that some workers who reached MMI q


DEU disability ratings did not support stakeholder concerns that workers with minimal impairment were likely to receive the RTWSP. However, we were not able to directly examine wage loss or PPD wage replacement rates for workers who received the RTW


iting. The claims administrators and physicians at the TAG meeting supported the idea of a consolidated report.
Another issue raised by some stakeholders was that the RTW & Voucher Form was not being completed by physicians because time spent complet


recipients, we estimate that 47 percent of workers who received a voucher for injuries in 2013–2014 had redeemed the voucher and received the SJDB by 2017. Voucher redemption rates were higher for lower-wage workers: We estimate a redemption rate of


 SJDB use and assessing the effectiveness of the SJDB in enabling return to work.
Changes in SJDB utilization following SB 863’s enactment cannot be fully attributed to the incentive effects of the RTW Supplement without further analysis. However, wh


several benefits. First, studying how vouchers are used (e.g., for purchasing computer equipment versus retraining) will provide insight into the VR services that workers have determined to be most important in assisting their return to work. This in


hile this current effort is studying trends in post-injury outcomes for broad groups of injured workers, an evaluation of the SJDB could draw upon some of the methodological approaches and utilize similar data to analyze trends for this relatively vu


r. However, our findings suggest that a lack of awareness and/or some confusion about the program, particularly among workers who do not have legal representation, may be preventing many eligible workers from applying. While this option would achieve


provide an evidence base for future changes to the RTW Supplement and, potentially, the SJDB. Whether the SJDB is effective at helping displaced workers with PD find new employment is a question that bears directly on whether the RTW Supplement might


into California’s system that resembles some of the advantages of a wage loss system while avoiding the potential for work disincentives inherent in a pure wage loss approach.
California has experimented with such a hybrid approach in the past. For t


the RTWSP would require action by the legislature.
In the near term, then, DIR should focus on increasing take-up of the RTWSP and on enabling more accurate monitoring of SJDB voucher issuance. The inherent limits of California’s impairment-based app


 2012. As of June
 109
12, 2018: https://www.dir.ca.gov/chswc/Reports/2012/CHSWC_AnnualReport2012.pdf
California Department of Industrial Relations, Office of the Director, Return to Work Supplement Program Proposed Regulations Revised Final Statemen


of Social Insurance, Workers’ Compensation: Benefits, Coverage, and
Costs—2014 Data, Washington, D.C., 2016.
National Academy of Social Insurance, Workers’ Compensation: Benefits, Coverage, and
Costs—2015 Data, Washington, D.C., 2017.
Neuhauser, Fran


rgain: Compensation for Work Injuries in the U.S., 1900–2016,” Boston, Mass.: Northeastern University, 2017.
State of California, “Schedule for Rating Permanent Disabilities Under the Provisions of the Labor Code of the State of California,” 2005.
U.


when an injured worker receives the RTW Supplement or appeals the decision). The aim of the interviews was to learn about the RTWSP and the RTW Supplement process from the different vantage points of various stakeholder groups.
Interview guides were


 insurance carriers. Transcripts were reviewed, aligned with the protocol questions, and finalized.
We used a variation of content analysis to develop a coding scheme for performing a qualitative description of the themes discussed by the workers’ co


he discussion and asked about any final suggestions on refinement of the RTWSP or other aspects of the workers’ compensation system that affect the RTWSP. When consent was provided to record the interview, transcript documents were created from the a


?
[Pay attention to any mentions of: affordability or sustainability of the program at the state level (for DIR), injured workers getting an adequate amount from the payment to assist in RTW, equitable disbursement of benefits, transparency or ease o


hort, about right? Are there cases that you can think of for which you think this is not right?
11. What was the thinking behind the “20-day period”?
a. Are these business days or calendar days?
12. Are there specific issues that you see from your va


er?
28. What about the motivations and incentives, in your opinion, of the employers once they have received the copies of the P&S and RTW & Voucher reports?
29. What about the motivations and incentives, in your opinion, of the injured worker once t


r issued?
42. Are there any modifications that you suggest?
Work Offer
Now, can we turn to discussing the actual offer of work?
43. What are the official guidelines around what constitutes an “offer of work”? 44. How is the offer of modified or alter


rios within which the injured worker (or the IW representative) could have an offer of work from the at-injury employer and be issued an SJDB voucher?
62. What about if the IW is working for a different employer? If that is the case, is it then OK fo


What is the main purpose for verifying California residency?
a. Is this only for tax purposes?
b. Can you receive the benefit if the IW lives out of state?
c. Can you gain the voucher and or the benefit if you live outside of California?
81. Once the


n actions that take place after the appeal?
95. Once it is determined that an IW will receive the RTW Supplemental benefit, how does this fit into the timing of the PPD benefit payment process?
96. California has a reverse offset plan in place such t


changes have?
F. Conclusion/Follow-Up
108. Thinking back about all the things you’ve told us today, are there any areas that we failed to cover or important questions that we should have asked?
109. If you were going to summarize the most important p


-missing value for the DEU rating. This yielded approximately 81,000 records from the DEU that matched the WCIS.
Voucher Data
We conducted some analyses based on the entire universe of records observed in the WCIS between 2011 and 2017 or some subset


ow English-language prevalence contain 26.7 percent of the population of California, so readers should interpret the low English variable used in our analysis as selecting people who live in areas in roughly the bottom quartile of English-language pr


IS data matched on date of birth, date of injury, or gender, we treated that unique match as the true linkage and discarded other linkages. We also used fuzzy matching between claim administrator claim numbers reported on the SROI and the DEU ratings


with a SROI linkage and the proportion with indemnity benefits reported (including any temporary or permanent benefits or settled amounts for temporary or permanent benefits). Very small claims administrators with fewer than 20 claims per year were e


135
Table B.1. Comparison of Analysis Sample to Full WCIS FROI
Demographics and Type of Coverage
       Main Sample Main Sample Distribution
Full WCIS Unweighted Weighted (complete records)
FROI Target
unweighted
          40.99 40.70 40.87 40.86 43%


ent factors allow projection of the long-term claim count from the count observed at a given maturity for an accident year.52 Table B.3 provides statewide estimates of the total claims to date and ultimate indemnity claims by year for the 2011–2017 i


far more obvious, with paid-to-date claim volumes dropping each year from 2011 to 2016. For an estimate of ultimate PPD claims by year, then, we assume that 50 percent of indemnity claims will eventually result in PPD, an assumption that appears to


011 injuries.
Identifying Workers at Risk of Receiving the RTWSP
To better understand which workers face a nontrivial probability of RTW Supplement receipt, we examined seven mutually exclusive categories of claims based on benefits, settlements, and


Even so, comparison to PPD recipients enables us to analyze targeting within one of the primary eligibility criteria of the program (PD). Due to the absence of information about qualifying return to work offers or SJDB voucher issuance in the WCIS,


s. Again using data from the claims administrator sample, Figure B.1 shows that RTWSP applications are typically filed soon after an individual receives the SJDB. The majority of applications are filed within the first three months after SJDB voucher


ince this population reflects the combination of employers and industries served by a nonrandom selection of claims administrators. However, a comparison of RTW Supplement recipients to all other claims in this sample shows that the same factors appe


 2,243 1,607
         144
Analysis of RTWSP Take-Up
Our primary analysis of program take-up used logistic regression to model receipt of the SJDB voucher and workers’ decisions to apply to the RTWSP, if eligible. Because both of these analyses requir


criteria (which
54 DWC regions included in the model are Los Angeles, Inland Empire, Bay Area, Central Valley, and San Diego. The Rest of State category includes the Central Coast, Eastern Sierra Foothills, North Sacramento Valley, North State–Shasta


similar across claims administrators within each broadly defined market sector. Under this assumption, it should be possible to extrapolate from the logistic regression model estimated on the convenience sample to the full analysis sample. The (weig


f claims administrator at a time: By extrapolating these separate models to the full sample, we impose the assumption that there are no meaningful differences across types of claims administrators in the probability of SJDB voucher issuance after con


 and the benefit listed in the row title. Proportions were weighted using inverse probability weights from a sample of claims administrators with timely and complete reporting to the SROI.
  Table B.10. Take-Up Model of Voucher Issuance Among PD Reci


 RTWSP Among Voucher Recipients: Logit Coefficients and Marginal Effects
0.160
0.160
       Low English ability (zip code)
Low internet connectivity (zip code) Log miles to DWC office (zip code) Legal representation
(1)
Logit Coefficients
0.0520 (0.0


 47.2% 39.1% 47.0%
         NOTES: WCIS, claims administrator convenience sample, injury years 2013–2014. WCIS proportions were weighted using inverse probability weights from a sample of claims administrators with timely and complete reporting to th


   157
California’s Return-to-Work Supplement Program (RTWSP) is a new benefit for permanently disabled workers who suffer disproportionately high earnings loss in comparison with their workers’ compensation benefits. The RTWSP provides a one-time $5


  CORPORATION
Leveraging Research and Philanthropy to Reduce Crime and Violence in the Mississippi Delta
Jessica Saunders, Dionne Barnes-Proby, Samuel Peterson
For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR2457
Published by the RAN


surance regulation. Program research is supported by government agencies, foundations, and the private sector.
RAND Justice, Infrastructure, and Environment (JIE) conducts research and analysis in civil and criminal justice, infrastructure developmen


olent Crime and Calls for Service by Neighborhood Within the Brickyard Community
and in Clarksdale, Mississippi, as a Whole........................................................................ 34 3.5. Contributors of Crime ........................


ow to think through the various options for selecting and implementing community-level violence prevention and intervention.
The findings of this work are organized by these research questions:
1. How are foundations funding crime and violence reduct


nd 3.5 homicides per 10,000 residents in Phillips and Coahoma Counties, respectively, while the U.S. average was 0.7 per 10,000 (CDC, 2018). Discussions of crime and violence revealed that these communities experience a great deal of violent and prop


e Table S.1). In general, programs that reduce crime and violence directly rely on strong partnerships and cooperation with law enforcement and other government entities. Approaches that might prevent crime by targeting the risk factors are more dive


 interventions that use a multistep approach to enhance protective factors and reduce risk factors in the family. These approaches have been found to be effective in a variety of settings
Providing continuing education to incarcerated adults to reduc


tured programs that provide youth with opportunities to connect with supportive adults, develop a sense of belonging, learn positive social norms, and build skills
Adult or peer mentors are matched with at- risk youth (mentees). Mentors and mentees m


ience literature has identified having local champions as one of the most important components of a successful crime prevention initiative. The strength of a community-coalition approach is its representation of multiple perspectives; increased commu


 coordinated effort that must rely heavily on community involvement to succeed.
As noted by the foundation representatives, affecting levels of crime and violence is very complex and challenging because crime and violence are so interrelated with oth


swer their four research questions:
1. How do foundations approach public safety funding?
2. What are the specific crime problems and their causes in Phillips County and Coahoma
County?
3. What programs have worked to address those crime problems and


g under the influence offenses (631 versus 460 per 100,000), while also having more officers per resident (3.7 versus 2.5 per 10,000), a higher overall arrest rate (4,192 versus 3,252 per 100,000), and a higher crime clearance rate (53 percent versus


ilar issues. Through this project, we will be able to explore philanthropic efforts to reduce crime, understand the specific crime challenges and opportunities in the Mississippi Delta region, link them to the extant research literature on effective


, police department
Police data from the Clarksdale, Mississippi, police department
Interviews with community stakeholders, n = 15
Focus groups with residents, number of groups = 4, number of participants = 51
Interviews with government officials, n


ndations, which resulted in 15 interviews (36.6-percent response rate). We did not set any criteria for the interviewees. We interviewed seven program officers, five
4
strategic directors/vice presidents of programs, and three executive directors. Fo


researchers have carefully defined the core concepts. After several iterations of initial and selective coding, the theory is revised, and then the researchers identify and flesh out the details of the core concepts and categories. We coded 426 excer


4-AJ-BX-0001, awarded by the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, but the findings expressed in this section are those of Baldwin and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Justice.
 6
Research Question 2: Characteri


perceived causes of crime, current solutions to crime problems and their effectiveness, and ideas for other ways to reduce crime.
Community Stakeholders
Recruitment began with an email sent by researchers to select community stakeholders (e.g., faith


ants in Coahoma County and 22 in Phillips County, spread across two focus group sessions in each location (a total of four focus groups). We provided a hot meal, dessert, and beverages at each group. In addition, each participant received a $20 incen


cy (e.g., custodial versus noncustodial sentencing, release programs, gun control, electronic monitoring) or those that address issues that were not described by interviewees and focus group members as top crime concerns (e.g., sex offending, domesti


g to create a framework for developing a comprehensive public safety strategy. We grounded our approach in the public health and community-based intervention promotion literature and integrated it with our expertise and experience in community-based


upport crime and violence reduction may end up in conflict with local or national policy. They may question the legitimacy of government programs and whether clients would be as responsive to such programs versus those run by local nonprofits. As one


rd to convince people that this is important and the work is important.”
Since the number of funders is limited, several interviewees noted that the need for funding outweighs their capacity, making funding decisions difficult. The limited supply of


ved as inefficient, overly political, and lacking a deep understanding of issues and legitimacy for the client base or target population. According to one project officer,
there is not enough funding and/or understanding of the segregated nature of c


escribed as being relatively high risk for foundations because they involve program components that can be a hard sell, such as providing monetary incentives to active gang members to not engage in criminal behavior. At least one interviewee noted th


ndations are working to build community capacity and empower locals to guide their crime- and violence- reduction strategies, ranging from focusing on youth and prevention to community violence reduction. This approach was used by small and large fou


g on basic human needs, and there’s no way there’s going to be quick impact; we need to be engaged longer term. No matter how much money; we’re not going to see impact for three to five years; we need to make significant investments.
When describing


ho are impacted by systems and policies.
For an eight-month period, we held symposia series with people working in the field to see where a small foundation could have an impact.
Making Awards
In addition to determining what to fund, foundations also


vide useful examples for making strategic funding decisions (see Table 2.1). One clear example is the Chicago Fund for Safe and Peaceful Communities. This fund is the administrator for the larger Partnership for Safe and Peaceful Communities, which c


0 foundations and individual donors (Partnership for Safe and Peaceful Communities, undated)
Supporting local leaders to adopt innovative strategies for reducing the misuse and overuse of jail incarceration. Twenty sites were selected for the challen


cusing specifically in targeted communities wasn’t the strategy for us. It’s a capacity issue.” Such coordinating activities were also seen as an effective way to be exposed to the work taking place in a new area.
Type and Length of Awards
Many funde


ons, nonprofit organizations, and government entities. The significance of the networks cannot be overstated. As one interviewee advised, “networking with other funders is really important, and policy makers as well. If I had to do it over again, I w


elationships that are beyond providing funding.” This will take a variety of forms, depending on the setting.
21
Additionally, sustaining relationships means that “it is important to be transparent about abilities and challenges . . . be clear about


ics between staff and board members and how the disconnect between their roles center on questions of impact:
22
A lot of foundations struggle with that. We came up with our own theory of philanthropy. Who we are and what’s the change we want to see?


onduct outcome evaluations. Second, it is often challenging to define a timeline for work. Third, many successes are hard to quantify.
Having internal and/or financial capacity to conduct impact evaluations distinguishes large foundations from their


tive nationally has been one-sided.
While foundations are engaging in an ongoing struggle to understand, assess, and promote the impact of their funding, interviewees believed the work should continue focusing on long- term impact. This is evidenced


mon understanding of many interviewees that the challenges that criminally involved clients face cut across a variety of spheres, and challenges in one sphere affect their ability to make progress in another. This helps the foundation be more strateg


a region generally referred to as “the Delta” (although it is not actually near the Mississippi Delta; see Figure 3.1). Both counties have small populations, with the majority of the population residing in their respective largest cities—Clarksdale i


 female
Percentage age <18 Percentage age 65+
Education and economic status
Percentage high school graduates Percentage of individuals below poverty level Median household income
Social
Percentage with disability (<65)
Coahoma County
23,809 –8.9% –22


t Helena (193.6 versus 149.5 per 10,000; Baldwin, Brown, and Jones, 2016).
The CDC also collects mortality data, which list cause of death assigned by the coroners, but which likely undercounts the true homicide rate. Using data from 2012–2016, homic


f a variety of reasons including, but not limited to, a difference in the way crimes are committed that influences the ability of the police to close a case, bias in the criminal justice system, or black residents committing crimes at a higher rate.


y criminal justice system agencies due to their declination to participate in this project. Therefore, we relied on information collected and analyzed by Julie Baldwin for her project with the Clarksdale Police Department (Baldwin, Brown, and Jones,


op). Therefore, the analyses were re-run with the exclusion of “escort” and a few other call types deemed inconsequential to recreate maps identifying citizen-generated problem locations. Violent crime data were then overlaid to determine locations t


percent in Coahoma County, 31 percent in Phillips County), followed by gangs (33 percent in Coahoma County, 25 percent in Phillips County). In both counties, robbery and gangs were more of a concern to government officials than community members, and


h concentration of crime in specific places (e.g., intersections, streets) is common in criminological research (Weisburd, 2015), as a few places often account for a disproportionate amount of crime (e.g., 3 percent of street segments account for ove


vement in violent incidents.
Like repeat offenders, there also tended to be repeat victims, and there was often a substantial degree of overlap between offenders and victims (Tewksbury and Mustaine, 2000; Thornberry and Krohn, 2003b). There were few


Comments regarding lack of “things to do” such as an absence of stores, restaurants, and movie theaters
Comments on the absence or quality of social programs
Mentions of mental health as a contributing factor to crime or describes incident(s) involv


18—I lost my guidance. I never had no type of guidance and you hear about kids raising themselves and that’s what’s going on. I had my mom but I had to teach myself right from wrong.
Another respondent discussed the relationship between parenting and


ead of being out there by yourself.”
42
Finally, while racial segregation in social settings was frequently mentioned by county representatives, few associated race with crime. Comments about racial tension and crime noted that oppression and repress


overnment system. Less than half of the interviewees in Coahoma County discussed this issue. Across the two counties, interviewees’ comments related to the poor judicial or government system noted that resources for law enforcement are inadequate, wh


in Phillips County) was failing schools, which included comments on the poor education system. Interviewees cited low high school graduation rates and low standardized test scores as evidence of the poor education systems in both counties. In additi


terms of addressing crime and violence.
46
Phillips County Government Addressing Crime and Violence
In terms of approaches that directly address crime and violence, the government officials reported several different strategies being implemented by t


icers with the necessary experience to conduct investigations. According to several interviewees, the police do not consistently enforce crime, do not always respond to calls for service, and lack professionalism. The lack of proficiency within the p


There were two primary explanations for the lack of experienced officers, the first being a recent change in administration and turnover in the department because of political and disciplinary issues over the past several years (in Helena-West Helen


 some cases, reinvolvement) and focus on three factors: (1) education and prosocial activities for youth, (2) parenting skills and family support, and (3) mental health and addiction services.
In terms of providing education and prosocial activities


build the workforce and address chronic and multigenerational poverty. However, government officials reported that when residents receive training and build desirable job skills, they often leave to pursue better opportunities elsewhere, so they und


ed of serious reform. This sentiment was fully acknowledged by both police and local government leadership, who have been focusing on making improvements through increasing officer compensation, removing officers who are not performing to standards,


trategies, and programs can be viewed as a catalog of vetted strategies that hold promise to improve community safety in the Mississippi Delta.
Both Coahoma County and Phillips County have recognized issues with burglary, gun violence, petty theft, r


specific objectives, and up to five strategies were described per objective. The research team also offers implementation considerations to provide additional relevant information when considering selecting this type of approach for the Mississippi


duce crime by systematically analyzing the problems of a community, searching for effective solutions to the problems, and evaluating the impact of their efforts.
Program Effects
Associated with 50% decrease in homicide
Mixed. In Chicago, reductions


mmunity resources to offenders
• arresting and prosecuting the violent offenders as an example of enforcement powers,
efforts to increase police legitimacy in the community, and subsequent community involvement (these are variant features).
Only one


 within 48 hours to provide crisis intervention, case management, counseling, and any other necessary services to the victims’ families.
• Criminal justice review: Monthly meetings by a variety of groups including, but not limited to, local police (c


implemented in a much wider variety of contexts, with uneven results (Papachristos, 2011).
This model is not enforcement-focused; rather, it attempts to change community norms and offer incentives for law-abiding behavior. There are multiple program


entified, but they generally include a four-step process called the “SARA” (scanning, analysis, response, and assessment) model:
58
• Scanning: In the first step, police identify and prioritize crime and disorder programs in a jurisdiction. This is d


ge of effectiveness across the studies. There are no data on what makes some programs better than others.
Table 4.2. Interventions by Crime Locations Summary Table
     59
     Approach
Hot spots policing
Crime prevention through environmental design


oad stolen property.
• Residents are encouraged to evaluate their property for security weaknesses and address
any issues they uncover.
60
• Other components can include citizen patrols, educational programs for young people, victim support services,


 negative secondary effects, such as alienating the community.
The National Research Council’s Committee to Review Research on Police Policy and Practices concluded that hot-spots policing has the strongest evidence base of any other effective progra


lots, shopping malls, campuses, hospitals, or various other facilities. Installation and street light components vary by setting. Increasing street lighting may include adding new lights, trimming bushes and trees to make lights more visible, and rep


oblems and develop and implement appropriate responses. Some strategies may focus on specific local problems and target specific populations. However, the disorder-policing approach focuses less on target populations and more on the areas or location


Estimated Cost
No publicly available cost information
Implementation Considerations Treatments take place while a juvenile is incarcerated
Programs are widely used across the United States; established training materials and technical assistance pro


ioral model in that it stresses cognitive reframing through the control of cognitive distortions, automatic thought, and self-instructions. Cognitive treatment centers more on the cognitive part of cognitive-behavioral treatment.
• Education treatmen


nt’s life (e.g., school, community) to improve the real-world functioning of youth by changing their natural settings—home, school, and neighborhood—in ways that promote prosocial behavior while decreasing antisocial behavior. Treatment varies by fam


costs $1,248 and yields $24,711 per participant; post-secondary education costs $1,248 and yields $24,711 in benefits per participant; and vocational education costs $1,495 and yields $17,781 in savings per participant.
Adults: Cognitive Behavioral T


ough curriculum-based individual or group sessions and home visiting; social cohesion through community-focused activities; and youth social development through engaging in community- based enrichment exercises and mentorship (see Table 4.4).
Approac


mmunities for All Ages (CFAA). However, a qualitative study demonstrated improvements in community engagement and social capital
Two studies found that participants had lower levels of teenage pregnancy, course failure, and school suspension than stu


ent training and child skills development activities, followed by a one-hour family session with parents and children. During the family sessions, parents and children practice the skills they have learned in their individual groups, work on conflict


h the child’s second birthday. Visits are conducted by a trained public health registered nurse, and 60-to-90 minute visits occur about every other week. Nurses use instruction and observation and focus on improving pregnancy outcomes, infant health


their communities (MetLife Foundation,
71
Generations United, 2015). Partnerships are critical to intergenerational communities and may include representatives from local government, older adult living communities, school, business, community organiz


esion and connectedness include
• Intentional neighboring or communities: These communities attempt to bring together neighbors from multiple generations regularly to develop relationships and provide reciprocal support and asset sharing to address i


ment.5
Additional promising programs to consider are
• Gang Resistance Education and Training: A school-based intervention that aims to prevent violence and criminal activity, teach young people to avoid gang membership, and develop positive relation


ian to monitor progress, as well as provide guidance and support as needed. Mentors are expected to meet with the child for at least three to five hours per week for 12 months or longer.
BBBS provides mentoring program guidelines about screening, mat


18 months for one program. The other program observed statistically significant reductions in recidivism.
Estimated Cost
Average per capita direct expenditures for Adult Workforce Investment Act program are $2,400– $2,700. Blueprints estimates cost o


The programs combine academic and technical career curricula centered on a specific theme and offer career development and work-based learning opportunities through partnership with local employers. This model seeks to enhance school engagement and p


necessary for success in postsecondary education, some Career Pathways may include bridge programs. Bridge programs may be the first phase (basic skills training) of the career pathway, as they provide industry-relevant basic education and training


(transitional) to long-term. These programs provide income in exchange for work; reduce the perceived risk or actual cost of hiring or increasing the wages of a worker; and provide work experience to disadvantaged workers. This results in societal be


his category of interventions includes a program that focuses on mobilizing communities to identify and address social development needs (see Table 4.6).
Approach/ Program Community development
Description
Collective action by communities to use reso


and culture: values and supports history, culture and diversity.
Specific community-building activities include gardening, group exercises, community art projects, housing development, leadership training, and supports for low-income residents (e.g.,


ophy is based broadly on the theory of self-concept. It relies on students’ intrinsic motivation for developing and maintaining positive behavioral patterns. The overall program goal of promoting positive action is accomplished by teaching skills foc


ilding activities (Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, undated-b).
• Behavior Monitoring and Reinforcement (also known as Achievement Mentoring): This is a two-year intervention for middl


vidence of positive effects on staying in school. In addition, there is some evidence that C&C positively affects student progress in school (Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, undated-c


ches to Community Safety, Project Safe Neighborhood, the Comprehensive Anti-Gang Initiative, as well as the Drug Market Initiative all lauded the multiagency, action-research model for tailoring each project to the local context and a specific crime


s that we recommend be considered when implementing research-based best practices. Throughout these sections, pertinent results from other sections are highlighted.
Building a Coalition/Local Steering Committee
Many experts, researchers, and federal


revention, as they recognized that a single intervention/program conducted in isolation is unlikely to solve the problem. Therefore, they spent considerable amounts of time building local relationships, collecting information about the problem, and c


ot be considered to be finalized. The work in this report should provide a good starting point for the coalition.
However, this is just the beginning for planning a comprehensive approach to crime and violence prevention. The next steps involve selec


focus on strategies that are outside of the criminal justice system because they do not wish to expose the community to different policing strategies that could potentially exacerbate problems between police and the community. This is where the coal


proved parent child bonding
• Increase in job placement and
retention
• Decrease in exposure to negative peers
• Decreased endorsement of
antisocial behavior
• Increase in graduation
• Increase in exposure to prosocial peers
• Reduced opportunity to


The selection of the actual interventions will be based on a variety of factors, and the coalition should remember that one size does not necessarily fit all. The CDC recommends that coalitions consider the feasibility of each approach or combinatio


ensive plan and associated timeline for implementation and evaluation.
Adapting, Implementation, and Evaluating
The next steps are beyond the scope of this chapter, but, in general terms, they involve how to tailor the approach to a specific context,


nkerhoff et al., 2012; Glasgow et al., 1999; Mertens and Wilson, 2012).
Additional Considerations
RAND has conducted a study on how to ensure success when implementing an evidence- based program into practice and identified ten important components (


ence. Many of the foundations have developed strong partnerships with either research teams or professional trainers to establish their legitimacy when they go in to a new location. These partnerships enable them to demonstrate prior success and prov


lition that represents multiple viewpoints, which often will not align, is challenging, but vital to success. For example, there were conflicting views about how to solve the crime and violence problem in the Mississippi Delta, and some of them are i


liography
Allen, J. P., and S. Philliber, “Who Benefits Most from a Broadly Targeted Prevention Program? Differential Efficacy Across Populations in the Teen Outreach Program,” Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 29, No. 6, 2001, pp. 637–655.
Allen


p://www.blueprintsprograms.com/program-costs/career-academies
———, “Communities That Care,” webpage, undated-c. As of May 30, 2018: http://www.blueprintsprograms.com/factsheet/communities-that-care
———, “Nurse-Family Partnership,” webpage, undated-d.


mployment Retention and Advancement Project, Washington, D.C.: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Report 2012-08, 2012.
Butts, J. A., C. G. Roman, L. Bostwick, and J. R. Porter, “Cure Violence: A Public Health Model to Reduce Gun Violence,”


ng Parents’ Positive Behavior Support in Early Childhood,” Child Development, Vol. 79, No. 5, 2008, pp. 1395–1414.
Dutta-Gupta, I., Lessons Learned from 40 Years of Subsidized Employment Programs: A Framework, Review of Models, and Recommendations fo


 Who Should Receive What Services? And How Much?” University of Maryland School of Public Policy and Atlantic Council, November 2013.
Heinrich, C. J., P. R. Mueser, K. R. Troske, K.-S. Jeon, and D. C. Kahvecioglu, “Do Public Employment and Training P


d with Effective Treatment,” Journal of Experimental Criminology, Vol. 1, No. 4, 2005, pp. 451–476.
Lewis, K. M., D. L. DuBois, N. Bavarian, A. Acock, N. Silverthorn, J. Day, P. Ji, S. Vuchinich, and B. R. Flay, “Effects of Positive Action on the Emo


utions.gov/PracticeDetails.aspx?ID=57
———, “Crime SOLUTIONS.gov,” webpage, undated-b. As of May 30, 2018: https://www.crimesolutions.gov/
———, “Program Profile: Corrections-Based Adult Basic/Secondary Education,” webpage, undated-c. As of May 30, 201


iveness of Home Visiting Programs on Child Outcomes: A Systematic Review,” BMC Public Health, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2013, p. 17.
Perkinson, L., K. Freire, and M. Stocking, Using Essential Elements to Select, Adapt, and Evaluate Violence Prevention Approach


rug Markets, Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, RR-1001-NIJ, 2016c. As of June 11, 2018: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1001.html
Saunders, J., M. Robbins, and A. J. Ober, “Moving From Efficacy to Effectiveness,” Criminology and Pu


ksbury, R., and E. E. Mustaine, “Routine Activities and Vandalism: A Theoretical and Empirical Study,” Journal of Crime and Justice, Vol. 23, 2000, pp. 81–110.
Thornberry, T. P., and M. D. Krohn, eds., “Comparison of Self-Report and Official Data for


/www.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial-census/decade.2010.html
108
U.S. Department of Education, “Education, Health and Human Services, and Labor Release Joint Career Pathways Letter,” webpage, April 12, 2012. As of May 30, 2018: https://www2.ed.


ing: A Model for Strengthening Community in Trauma Affected Neighborhoods, San Francisco: Bridge Housing and the Health Equity Institute, 2014.
Weisburd, D., “The Law of Crime Concentration and the Criminology of Place,” Criminology, Vol. 53, No. 2,


   Using Social Media and Social Network Analysis in Law Enforcement
Creating a Research Agenda, Including Business Cases, Protections, and Technology Needs
John S. Hollywood, Michael J. D. Vermeer, Dulani Woods, Sean E. Goodison, Brian A. Jackson
In


work analysis; (2) technical develop- ment, starting with assessing current tools and how they might be better tailored to law enforcement; (3) law enforcement–specific training on these types of analysis; and (4) creation of a help desk to help law


and social net- work analysis. Here, the initial recommendations are to develop requirements for training and assess gaps between current com- mercial- and defense-focused training and what is needed for law enforcement training. This implicitly incl


eraction with social media and use of social media data is therefore important, given the need to police in this technological era. However, social media analysis by law enforcement does raise acute privacy, security, and civil rights needs, because


nge of examples of the use of social media data and social network analysis for law enforcement purposes:
• Solving a gang-related shooting by matching knowledge about feuding gang networks with motor vehicle information. Analysts used social network


uencers and leaders in social networks (in brief, these influencers/leaders typically have higher numbers of both direct and indirect relationships). Girvan and Newman (2002) provide an example of a method for finding likely sub- groups within larger


iated analytics in law enforcement. Panel members included a range of experts, including practitioners
of social media and social network analysis in law enforce- ment, developers of social media and social network analysis methods for law enforcemen


lated to social media data and social network analysis that should be discussed at the workshop. In addition to providing a way for panelists to contribute to shaping the discussion during the meeting, the questionnaire also helped to define a common


 or training. In our work, each need consists of
a problem/opportunity statement and a solution statement. There can be multiple solution statements—and hence multiple needs—for the same problem/opportunity, capturing different options or strategies


en pairs of needs if the needs addressed similar issues or proposed the same type of solution. Displaying the network revealed that the needs and their rela- tionships fell into four entirely separate groups. The similarities between the four separat


ld all
be part of emergency “calls” that would get into public safety access points (PSAPs). Next Generation 911 is in part intended to address this need (National Telecommunications and Information Administration, 2017). Agencies would then have the


vered in other business cases.
As for cases between the extremes above, the discussion focused on how these needed to be worked out at the local level, community by community. This led to panel discussions on the need for transparency and how to enga


ng a range of social services; sanctions typically include increased contacts with law enforcement, increased investigations and prosecutions, and increased sentencing on conviction.
The National Network for Safe Communities (2016) pro- vides a gener


rimes they might commit in the future but have not actually commit- ted. Similarly, analysts need to be able to differentiate between people who are high-risk because they are a high threat to the community versus those who are at high risk of becomi


sts of persons and other entities of interest. As examples, a 2013 FBI bul- letin presented applications of identifying why two rival gangs suddenly started battling each other; identifying a previously unknown associate of an at-large suspect, which


y than results leading to increased community engagement.
Protections for Data Collection
Protections for data collection relate primarily to document- ing procedures and policies, and having protections, for data searches and collections. At the bas


cies to prevent conducting more stops based only on casual social connections that have not been confirmed to be genuine criminal connections by subsequent investigation (both manual and machine-assisted). It was noted that “just because you have 500


stakeholders to collectively develop model procedures and policies. Specific needs here include developing policies for using commercial social media tools, conducting covert social media research, and conducting undercover social media investiga- t


whether an older one has been superseded.
Develop best practices for transparency with regard to use of social media data.
Conduct a review of the efficacy and acceptability of state and local privacy councils (one example is in Oakland, California).


ysis Chain
Conduct a forum for the existing software developers and practitioners/users to exchange information on the shortcomings of existing software.
Conduct an independent review of commercial tools and techniques for social network analysis.
De


approaches for overcom- ing them, and a way ahead to conduct the studies, analyses, and educational material development needed to prepare law enforcement–focused materials for social media and social net- work analysis training. As a short-term trai


can be a
source of knowledge on how to obtain usable information from specific sources (mobile phone companies, social media companies, etc.).
High-value, high-risk
16
 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS: THE INNOVATION AGENDA FOR SOCIAL MEDIA AND SOCIAL NETWOR


urrent (com- mercial- and defense-focused) training and what is needed for law enforcement–focused training. As noted, training on legal implications and protections is a short-term need that can be addressed by developing a model curriculum.
The fin


ot spot analysis. Likelihood of success was bracketed as 1 equaling about a 10 percent chance of success and 9 equaling about a 90 percent chance of success.
To combine the two scores, we took an expected value (EV) approach, multiplying the two scor


e whether there were any “low- hanging fruit” needs, defined as being in Tier 2 but having a very low risk (median likelihood of success score of 8 or higher).
There were no such needs in this study.
There are 22 priority needs. Figure A.3 shows that


0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Help desk
for taking down feeds
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SOP for covert SM research
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
BP for
public discourse of SM uses
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
BP for
multi- stakeholder responses to risks
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
Policy assessment of privacy


y, and judicial fairness in handling digital evidence for criminal justice and public access purposes.
Best practices and policy guidelines are published by
a variety of organizations over the years in multiple versions, but there is no authoritative


rmation on the efficacy of commercial tools and techniques for social network analysis.
When requesting information from social media organizations or collecting it from devices, the resulting data set is often huge (data overload).
Table B.4. Priori


gh social network analysis practitioners to meet the demand.
Conduct research into the gaps between where the profession is now and where it should be.
Tier 2
 Often there are several needs to redact video evidence (e.g., discovery, evidence/exhibits


able information from specific sources (mobile phone companies, social media companies, etc.).
Tier 3
Crimes are often “reported” by sharing text, photos, or video on social media or directly with law enforcement. In such situations, geolocation or e


tp://www2.oaklandnet.com/government/o/CityAdministration/d/ PrivacyAdvisoryCommission/index.htm
Coldren, James, and John Markovic, “Utilizing Social Network Analysis to Reduce Violent Crime,” Violence Reduction Network Webinar Series, July 20, 2015.


search_reports/RR1462.html
Hollywood, John S., Dulani Woods, Andrew Lauland, Brian A. Jackson, and Richard Silberglitt, Addressing Emerging Trends to Support the Future of Criminal Justice: Findings of the Criminal Justice Technology Forecasting Grou


 ’13), 2013, pp. 1042–1049. As of April 9, 2018: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1306.6834.pdf
Pew Research Center, “How We Analyzed Twitter Social Media Networks with NodeXL,” 2014. As of June 10, 2017: http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2014/02/How-we-analyzed


ation, in partnership with the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), RTI International, and the University of Denver, is carrying out a research effort to assess and prioritize technology and related needs across the criminal justice community. Thi


lication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Justice.
Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND


 CORPORATION
Los Angeles County
Juvenile Justice Crime
Prevention Act
Fiscal Year 2016–2017 Report Terry Fain, Susan Turner, Nima Shahidinia
For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR2401
Published by the RAND Corporation, Sant


latively 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- tion gath


9 Report, Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corpora- tion, TR-832-LACPD, September 2010b
• Terry Fain, Susan Turner, and Greg Ridgeway, Los Angeles County Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act: Fiscal Year 2007–2008 Report, Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corpor


n for Middle School Probationers,
by Cluster, FY 2016–2017: Arrest, Incarceration, and Completion of Probation . . . . . . . . .
2.17. Outcomes for School-Based Probation Supervision for Middle School Probationers, by Cluster, FY 2016–2017: Completio


 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.4. Means, Differences in Differences, Odds Ratios, and Confidence Intervals for
Outcomes for Mental Health. . . . . .


...................................................58
2.17. Factors Used to Match School-Based Probation Supervision for Middle School Probationers and Comparison-Group Youths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.17. Estimated Mean Net Cost Savings for Initiatives, FY 2016–2017, in 2016 Dollars . . . . . .
4.1. Results from Simple Comparisons in Programs That Used the Previous Year


-Need Youths, and Enhanced School- and Community-Based Services. We also present a comparison of juve- nile justice system costs for program youths in the six months before they entered the JJCPA programs and in the six months after entering the prog


f probation, (4) successful completion of restitution, (5) successful completion of community service, and (6) probation violations. Each county can also request that a program measure supplemental outcomes for locally iden- tified service needs (BSC


square test evaluates how likely it is that a difference between two groups is not due to chance alone.
 of Supervisors (BOS) contracts, and expanded programs. These funds totaled $2,926,705, so the total expenditure of JJCPA funds in FY 2016–2017 wa


ion rate is not a realistic expectation.6 For all the big six outcomes, the most important metric is whether program participants performed significantly better than comparison-group youths, not the absolute value of any given outcome.
Participants I


outh was on probation prior to program entry. This potentially tips the scale in favor of better performance on all probation-related outcomes, except probation violations, after program entry than prior to program entry. Our evaluation of JJCPA prog


ne 30, 2017. To allow a six-month eligibility period for recidivism, however, the number for whom a program reported outcomes uses a reference period of January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016. The participants for whom a program can report outcom


year, not on trends over time. This approach is consistent with the scope of what the BSCC required in the past and what the BOS expects. From year to year, a particular big six outcome might not always be more positive for program participants, but,


rams that used contempo- raneous comparison groups were small and showed no significant differences between program and comparison-group youths.
– SBHS-PROB participants showed more-positive outcomes for four of the big six out-
comes.
– SBMS-PROB pa


valuate the quality of program implementation.
Outcomes
Historical and Contemporaneous Comparison Groups and Pre–Post Comparisons
Three of the four programs that used contemporaneous comparison groups (MST, SBMS- PROB, and SNC) were quite small. MST


ent cohort performing at least as well as the previous year’s cohort had. As Table S.3 indicates, the FY 2016–2017 cohort equaled or surpassed the FY 2015–2016 cohort’s performance for all but one of the 34 outcomes. For the one outcome (arrests in t


sed Services initiative spent $754 per participant. Differences between initiatives in estimated mean cost
Table S.4
Results of Difference-in-Differences Analyses for Programs That Used the Previous Year’s Cohorts as Comparison Groups
 Program Arrest


s and Initiatives
Table S.6 shows the estimated mean baseline and follow-up costs per participant in each JJCPA program in FY 2016–2017, based on the budget for each program. As one might expect, mean costs differ noticeably among the three initiativ


rall juvenile justice costs for JJCPA participants were generally higher in the six months after program entry ($19,877) than in the six months prior to program entry ($11,571), primarily because of the cost associated with administering the programs


mp were markedly lower in the six months after participants entered the program, with camp costs averaging $9,681 less in the follow-up period than in the baseline period. The reduction of camp costs in the follow-up period was enough to drive the ov


eported, only 142 (12.7 percent) had supplementary outcome data. We will continue to work with Probation to increase the amount of data available for supplemental outcomes for all JJCPA programs.
FY 2016–2017 was the 16th consecutive year for which p


ool At-Risk Youths SBHS-PROB School-Based Probation Supervision for High School Probationers SBMS-AR School-Based Probation Supervision for Middle School At-Risk Youths SBMS-PROB School-Based Probation Supervision for Middle School Probationers SD sc


tion Act: Fiscal Year 2016–2017 Report
The BSCC has responsibility for administering the JJCPA program.2 From 2001 through 2016, the legislation required the BSCC to submit annual reports to the California state legis- lature measuring the success of


enile Justice Coordinating Committee identified unspent funds from previous years, which were allocated to one-time uses. These were spent on a New Directions program, Los Angeles County Board of Supervi- sors (BOS) contracts, and expanded programs.


groups already being selected before the beginning of the evalu- ation. If an experimental design cannot be used, researchers often evaluate programs using quasi-experimental designs, in which they choose a comparison group to match the treatment gro


he program (for community programs) or after they are released into the community (for juvenile hall programs). In addition to the big six, the Probation Department, working with BOC (and later with CSA and the BSCC), defined supplemental outcomes sp


ion supervision, and orders to avoid gang activity. To create a comparison group, the RAND team also worked with MST and SNC personnel to identify program “near misses” appropriately similar to program participants. The near misses used in comparison


00-percent completion-of-probation rate is not a realistic expectation.4 For all the big six outcomes, the most important metric is whether program par- ticipants performed significantly better than comparison-group youths did, not the absolute value


successful. For the school-based probationer programs, we used propensity- score matching to create comparison groups, starting with a large group of routine probation- ers who were not in JJCPA programs and statistically matching their characterist


 baseline over the two years.7
Programs measure each of the big six outcomes during both baseline and follow-up peri- ods for both the current and previous years.8 If the lower bound of a 95-percent confidence interval (CI) is less than 1 and the upp


de a difference-in- differences analysis for each big six outcome measure. The odds ratio and 95-percent CIs in the tables presenting the results of our difference-in-differences analyses always refer to the interaction term year × post.
Limitations


ation (e.g., Brief Symptom Inventory [BSI] scores) but actually administer the evaluation only once for most participants, at the time of program entry. We report supplemental outcomes only if the youth receives both baseline and follow-up evaluation


tcomes
• Appendix C: CBOs that contracted with Probation to provide JJCPA services in FY
2016 –2017
• Appendix D: details of outcomes for each program
• Appendix E: details of outcomes for each program, by participant gender
• Appendix F: details of


t can receive services from more than one initiative and from mul- tiple programs, within or across initiatives, and concurrently or consecutively. The Probation Department counts a given youth as a participant within each program from which he or sh


 number for whom a program reported outcomes.
2 The near misses used in comparison groups for MST were youths who had similar characteristics to those of program participants but who were not accepted into the program, usually because of lack of Medi


s youths with severe mental health issues; few, if any, placement options for crossover populations (e.g., youths in both juvenile justice and foster care systems); and no cost-effective family-based community treatment service. These problems were a


nce for most outcomes in this evaluation requires that each cell of a 2 × 2 table contain at least five observations. The 2 × 2 tables use the group (program and comparison) as rows and outcome (yes = 1, no = 0) as columns. Some programs (e.g., very


treatment approach as an essential requirement because of the high incidence of co-occurring disorders among the youths. Integrated systems involve collaboration that crosses multiple public agencies, including juvenile justice and mental health, to


meone’s overall psycho- logical state at a given time, and a lower score in the post period simply indicates fewer (or less severe) overall symptoms. DMH gave Probation only the overall BSI score, which Probation then forwarded to RAND. DMH measured


try (47.77), a statistically significant difference. Number of administrations of the BSI appears to be related to length of stay in the hall. Those who were administered the BSI more than once had significantly longer hall stays (60.9 days) than tho


ealth
  Mean Percentage
Current Year Previous Year
    Outcome Baseline
Arrest 49.28
Incarceration 14.64
Completion 0.62 of probation
Completion 4.88 of restitution
Completion 0.62 of community
service
Probation 8.09 violation
Follow-Up Baseline
39.4


MST studies has indicated that the program has small but significant outcomes on delinquency and psychopathology, substance use, family functioning, and peer relationships (van der Stouwe et al., 2014).
Using eight years of data from Los Angeles Coun


groups were not statistically significant for any of the big six outcome measures. Although some measures (e.g., completion of community service) showed relatively large differences between groups, smallness of samples prevented the differences from


ivism rates (Sarteschi, Vaughn, and Kim, 2011). A study on clients in Washoe County, Nevada, showed a significant decrease in days in jail and days in psychiatric hospitalization (Frailing, 2010). In a study of four mental health courts in San Franci


y founded to treat adults, the drug court model quickly expanded to include juvenile drug courts. Between 1995 and 2001, more than 140 juvenile drug courts were established (Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2003). These juvenile courts actually had a si


SNC were near misses for SNC eligibility during FY 2014– 2015, FY 2015–2016, or FY 2016–2017, primarily because the program did not deem those youths’ cases sufficiently serious. The two groups did not differ significantly in age, gender, or race an


as a comparison group, difference-in-differences analysis agreed with a simple com- parison of the two groups, with one exception: Although a simple comparison indicated that the FY 2016–2017 had higher rates of completion of community service than t


The DPOs rely on the Los Angeles Risk and Resiliency Checkup (LARRC) to assess criminogenic risk and need factors (S. Turner, Fain, and Sehgal, 2005b; S. Turner and Fain,
   26 Los Angeles County Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act: Fiscal Year 201


and church members)
• programs that tap girls’ cultural strengths rather than focusing primarily on the indi- vidual girl (e.g., building on Afrocentric perspectives of history and community relation- ships)
Current JJCPA Programs and FY 2016–2017 Ou


pants consists of GSCOMM participants whose outcomes we reported for the previous year (FY 2015–2016), with the goal of them performing at least as well in the current year as in the previous year. The program selected participants who had arrests th


67 of restitution
Completion 0.00 of community
service
Probation 0.00 violation
Follow-Up
2.21
0.46 28.89
32.26 31.03
11.11
Odds Ratio
1.455 0.397 —
0.370 —
—
95% CI
0.666–3.178 0.067–2.372 —
0.047–2.948 —
—
    NOTE: Because the baseline for the cur


pita.
The HRHN program employs a social learning curriculum (SLC) in its home-based service components. It targets services not at the participant alone but at the entire family and other parts of the participant’s environment. It focuses on school a


017 Outcome Measures 31
emphasis on reducing participant youths’ exposure to delinquent peers. Although MTFC does not prevent out-of-home placement, both biological and foster parents receive parental training. The program trains parents to monitor d


t research on juvenile justice service deliv- ery in the past 15 years has been largely about failures of punitive institutional models (Bennett et al., 2017).
– creation of links with community resources and social networks. This element of case man


, as a supplemental outcome, we measured employment during the six months before entry into the community phase of the program and in the six months following entry into the community phase. For the gender-specific, home- based component, we measured


or Outcomes for High Risk/High Need
  Mean Percentage
  Current Year
Previous Year
  Outcome Baseline
Arrest 35.98
Incarceration 12.37
Completion 1.33 of probation
Completion 8.64 of restitution
Completion 1.38 of community
service
Probation 7.00 vio


echniques include exploring the positive and negative consequences of continued use, self-monitoring to recog- nize drug cravings early on and to identify high-risk situations for use, and developing strate- gies for coping with and avoiding high-ris


itive drug tests. We measured these supplemental outcomes during the six months before program entry 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 Prev


dds Ratio
0.948 1.847 1.034
1.569 —
4.551
95% CI
0.517–1.738
0.612–5.575 0.058–18.494
0.550–4.473 —
0.874–23.704
    NOTE: Because the baseline for the current year was 0, we could not compute the odds ratio for
community service. “Diff – Diff Percen


ods’ schools
• rate of overall crime
• rateofjuvenilecrime
• rate of substance abuse
• rate of child abuse and neglect
• number of residents living below the poverty level.
Programs and services included in this initiative are ACT, HB, IOW, PARKS, SB


and FY 2016–2017 Outcome Measures 39
Table 2.10
Programs and Comparison Groups in the Enhanced School- and Community-Based Services Initiative
Program Comparison Group
ACT Program participants (pre–post design)
HB Program participants (pre–post desig


mmon cause of truancy and that school attendance improves when 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 pr


e program.
Outcomes
For outcome measures, we examined 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,


ce delinquency and enhance family func- tioning and success by implementing case-management interventions and services that
• address criminogenic needs and risk factors, based on a research-based risk and need instrument validated for the Los Angele


 baseline 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,


• recognition: 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 significantly lower than their g


e 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 additional details for all outcomes. Cluster and gen


at county and city parks, schools, and CBOs. School-based DPOs refer probationers to the after- school program. The program offers these services at a time of the day when youths, especially probationers, are most likely to be without adult supervis


owson, 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. JJCPA’s PARKS program is based on the aforemen


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 program is goal oriented and strives to reduce delinquency and promot


 case-management interventions
• address both risk factors and criminogenic needs
• employevidenced-basedtreatmentintervention
• provide prosocial adult modeling and advocacy
• provide postprobation planning with the probationer and family by the sch


ses, we compared 2,525 SBHS-AR and 1,765 comparison-group youths. SBHS-AR participants improved school attendance (percentage of days attended) in the term after entering the program compared with the term immediately before (93.2 percent versus 85.3


ere available only for the four school-based programs and the HB program.
  Current JJCPA Programs and FY 2016–2017 Outcome Measures 51
Figure 2.9
Outcomes for School-Based Probation Supervision for High School At-Risk Youths, by Cluster, FY 2016–201


hts for comparison-group youths so that their characteristics matched those of the program participants. We included only probationers with valid data on all vari- ables in creating weights for the comparison group. Because virtually every school-bas


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 outcomes by cluster. In this program, youths from cluster 2 had higher arrest and incarceration rates than youths in o