© Child Trends 2003
|
Guide to Effective Programs |
SOUTH OXNARD CHALLENGE PROJECT (SOCP)
OVERVIEW
The South Oxnard Challenge Project (SOCP) is designed for adolescents who have received probation as a result of a citation or an arrest or have violated their probation. The program provides extra services and increased staff contact to attempt to prevent future arrests and further escalation in the justice system. The program was effective in increasing the amount of contact with staff, the amount of time that was spent on a child’s case, and the child’s use of referral services. The program had no impacts on recidivism rates and had few impacts on substance use, subsequent restitution sanctions, and assigned community service.
The SOCP program was located in a local community center which employs a variety of staff such as probation officers, service coordinators, child and family services social workers, substance abuse specialists, mental health workers, mentors, police officers, community outreach workers, and restorative justice advocates. These staff help the child access needed services, provide more frequent face-to-face contact with the child and family, and generally spend additional time working on the child’s case than would normally be received if a child only had access to a probation worker. The SOCP program also provides a variety of services that are not normally received under routine juvenile probation. These services include mental health, substance abuse, anger management, parenting skills, child protective services, mediation, City Corps, community service and development opportunities, and day reporting services. Children are assigned to the program for 7 months if they are under informal probation and 9 months for formal probation.
Lane, J., Turner, S., Fain, T., & Sehgal, A. (2005). Evaluating an experimental intensive juvenile probation program: Supervision and official outcomes. Crime and Delinquency, 51(1), 26-52.
Approach: Children were selected from the South Oxnard and Port Hueneme of California area and matched to eligibility criteria. Children were then randomly assigned to the South Oxnard Challenge Project (SOCP) or to a control condition of “routine probation”. A total of 264 children were assigned to the SOCP condition and 275 to the control condition. The intervention period ranged from 7 to 9 months depending on the severity of the case, treatment in the comparison group ended when the probation case is closed.
Children in the SOCP condition received extra services in addition to all of the services that the control condition received; these will be broken down by area. For case management, children in the SOCP condition were assigned an interagency team based on the individual needs of the child and the control group was assigned only a probation officer. For contact with youth, the SOCP condition received an initial home conference, 2 family contacts by a service coordinator, and 1 hour per week of face-to-face contact with a case navigator; the control condition received an office visit once per month and a field visit once every 3 months. For social services availability, mental health, alcohol/drug, anger management, parenting skills, child protective services, mediation, City Corps, and day reporting services were all located onsite for the SOCP condition whereas the control condition were referred to outside agencies. For victim services, in the SOCP condition probation officers call the victim or refer the child to an on-site restorative justice advocate; in the control condition probation officers send a restitution letter or refer the child to a local nonprofit for mediation. For community services, in the SOCP condition children had access to community outreach workers, community advisory groups, community development events, and community service projects; children in the control group did not have access to any of these.
Youth were assessed at 5 points throughout the program: baseline, posttest, 6-month follow-up, 12-month follow-up, and 18-month follow-up. The two main assessments of the youth across the intervention and follow-up period were recorded contacts with youth, families, or victim’s by probation officers or other staff and official outcomes were also tracked using probation files.
Results: Children and their families in the SOCP program had significantly more contact with case staff such as probation officers, case navigators, treatment providers, City Corps staff, and other staff than children and their families in the comparison condition. More time was spent on each case by staff for children in the SOCP program compared with children in the control condition. Children in the treatment condition were more likely to receive services; substance abuse treatment, educational, mentoring, recreation, vocational, and family services than children in the control condition. Children in the treatment condition were equally likely as those in the control condition to receive services in counseling and physical health.
The program had no impact at the posttest or at the 18-month follow-up on arrest rates, petition rates, or incarceration rates of children. Children in the control condition were more likely to have completed their probation at the end of the intervention compared with children in the treatment group. The authors maintain that this finding is the result of more contact with staff and subsequently, the children were more likely to remain on informal probation.
Children in the treatment condition were more likely to be tested for drugs and were more likely to have tested positive for drugs at posttest than children in the control condition. Children in the treatment condition were still more likely to test positive for drug use at the 18-month follow-up but were equally likely to be tested as those in the control group. Children in the treatment group were more likely to be assigned restitution sanctions at both posttest and at 18-month follow-up, but were no more likely to pay restitution than children in the control group. The program had no impacts on the number of children who were assigned community service as restitution but the program impacted the number of hours completed by children such that those in the treatment condition completed more community service hours on average.
Note: Analyses were not designed to adjust for the effect of clustering within schools.
Website: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/DivisionsBoards/CSA/profile-ventura.htm
Lane, J., Turner, S., Fain, T., & Sehgal, A. (2005). Evaluating an experimental intensive juvenile probation program: Supervision and official outcomes. Crime and Delinquency, 51(1), 26-52.
Program categorized in this guide according to the following:
Evaluated participant ages: 11-18 / Program age ranges in the Guide: adolescence, youth
Program components: provider-based; counseling/therapy; parent or family component; service learning
Measured outcomes: behavioral problems; physical health; positive citizenship
Program information last updated 10/5/07
|
|
|
© Child Trends 2003 |