EVALUATION OF THE

DISPROPORTIONATE MINORITY

CONFINEMENT (DMC) INITIATIVE

Arizona Final Report

U. S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention

May 8, 1996
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................... iv

I. INTRODUCTION .................................................. I-1

1. BACKGROUND ........................................... I-1

1.1 Summary of DMC Literature ............................ I-1

1.2 OJJDP's DMC Initiative ............................... I-2

2. ARIZONA DMC DEMONSTRATION PROJECT .................. I-3

2.1 Phase I Research .................................... I-3

2.2 Phase II Activities .................................... I-4

3. PURPOSE AND STRUCTURE OF THE EVALUATION REPORT .... I-5

II. METHODOLOGY ................................................. II-1

1. EVALUATION DESIGN ..................................... II-1

2. DATA COLLECTION METHODS AND SOURCES ................ II-2

2.1 State-level Data Collection ............................. II-5

2.2 Pilot Project Data Collection ........................... II-6

3. DATA ANALYSIS ......................................... II-7

III. STATE-LEVEL PARTICIPATION IN ARIZONA'S DMC INITIATIVE ......... III-1

1. ARIZONA'S DMC INITIATIVE ............................... III-1

2. PHASE I RESEARCH ACTIVITIES AND FINDINGS ............. III-2

2.1 Phase I Processes .................................. III-3

2.2 Phase I Outcomes .................................. III-6

3. PHASE II PLANS AND ACTIVITIES .......................... III-9

3.1 Continuing Public Awareness and Education ............. III-10
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

PAGE

ii

3.2 Modifying Law, Policies, and Procedures ................ III-11

3.3 Developing State-wide DMC Programs ................. III-11

3.4 Funding Community-Based Pilot Projects ............... III-12

4. KEY FACTORS AFFECTING THE DMC INITIATIVE ............ III-14

4.1 Facilitating factors ................................. III-14

4.2 Impeding factors ................................... III-15

5. FUTURE PLANS FOR MONITORING AND ADDRESSING DMC . . III-16

IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE PILOT PROJECT ............................ IV-1

1. BACKGROUND .......................................... IV-1

1.1 Pilot Project Selection Process ........................ IV-1

1.2 Pilot Project County Environments ...................... IV-2

2. SUMMARY OF EVALUATION FINDINGS ..................... IV-3

2.1 Summary of Seven Pilot Projects ....................... IV-4

2.2 Assessment of Projects As DMC Interventions ............ IV-8

2.3 Summary of Process Evaluation Findings ............... IV-10

3. SEVEN PILOT PROJECTS ................................ IV-14

3.1 American Indian Family Law Education: 

Positive Contact Program ............................ IV-14

3.2 EMPACT-SPC: A Different Path Program ............... IV-19

3.3 Mothers Against Gangs: Apoyo Program ............... IV-26

3.4 Our Town Family Center: Minority Workshop Project ...... IV-31

3.5 Pima Prevention Partnerships: Equal Treatment Project ... IV-37

3.6 Pinal Hispanic Council: Project Esperanza Project ........ IV-44

3.7 Westside Social Services: Juvenile Diversion Program ..... IV-50

V. LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE ARIZONA DMC INITIATIVE ............ V-1

1. OVERVIEW ............................................. V-1

2. SPECIFICATION OF LESSONS LEARNED .................... V-2

2.1 Defining the DMC Problem ............................ V-2
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

PAGE

iii

2.2 Designing and Implementing the DMC Intervention ......... V-4

2.3 Monitoring and Institutionalizing The DMC Solution ........ V-6

APPENDIX A ...................................................... A-1

APPENDIX B ...................................................... B-1

APPENDIX C ...................................................... C-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
I-iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The disproportionate minority confinement (DMC) mandate of the Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act requires states to develop and

implement strategies to address and reduce the overrepresentation of minority youth in

secure facilities. In an effort to facilitate compliance with the mandate, the Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) sponsored demonstration

projects in five pilot states. In Phase I of OJJDP's DMC Initiative, each pilot state

assessed the extent of DMC in its juvenile justice system. In Phase II, each state

designed and implemented strategies to address the disproportionate representation

identified in Phase I. The Initiative also included a National Evaluation to document the

lessons learned, identify key factors in the success of state and local efforts, and

determine the efficacy of different interventions in reducing DMC. At the request of

OJJDP, Caliber Associates, in conjunction with state representatives and Portland

State University, conducted the National Evaluation, consisting of separate evaluations

of each pilot state and one non-pilot state. This report presents findings from the

evaluation of the Arizona DMC demonstration project that began in October 1991.

METHODOLOGY

Arizona's DMC Initiative, focusing on the development and implementation of

small, community-based programs, lent itself to a formative, or process, evaluation

design. The evaluation consisted of qualitative analysis of state-level project

documents and interviews with key state-level DMC participants, as well as intensive

investigation of local pilot project activities and interviews with project representatives.

ARIZONA'S DMC INITIATIVE

Relying on input from state agency and community representatives and

incorporating a systemic definition of DMC, the major finding of Arizona's Phase I

research effort was that the nature and extent of differential treatment varied between

Anglo and minority youth, among minority youth, and from point to point in the juvenile

justice system. The Phase I research effort also identified several potential sources of

DMC including: system-wide discrimination, barriers to effective parental advocacy,

inadequate cultural knowledge and skills among system administrators, and limited

resources. Phase I activities also included increasing community awareness of the

DMC problem and educating juvenile justice professionals on DMC issues, resulting in
I-v

increased commitment to addressing the DMC problem and widespread agreement that

the state's information systems need improvement. 

The Arizona DMC Team considered several approaches to addressing the

problem of minority youth overrepresentation in the juvenile justice system that were

firmly grounded in Phase I research findings. Phase II activities included efforts to

reduce DMC by modifying state legislation and local policies, and to develop a

statewide advocacy program, which failed, primarily due to political indifference. 

Ultimately, Arizona's Phase II intervention strategy focused on developing communitybased pilot projects. Consistent with Phase I findings, each of the seven funded

projects addressed both systemic and socio-economic causes of DMC. Collectively,

the projects targeted all at-risk minority populations in the state. 

The evaluation of the pilot projects focused on the implementation process of

each project. Five of the seven projects realized all of their project objectives by the

conclusion of the grant period. Each of the seven projects addressed at least two of

the key issues identified in Phase I. Most of the projects addressed four or more

issues, indicating that the seven projects were appropriate interventions based on the

Phase I research. 

State-level DMC activity during Phase II was minimal, partially because of the

grass-roots approach to developing interventions, partially due to staff turnover and the

lack of resources, and partially due to politics. During Phase II, Arizona state and local

elections featured several candidates who took vocal “tough on crime” stances. Some

DMC stakeholders therefore believed that Arizona state government leaders provided

little support to the DMC initiative out of fear of being labeled as “soft on crime” during

an election year. The state’s Phase II activities did, however, include a successful

effort at continued public awareness and education through the dissemination of Phase

I research findings. 

LESSONS LEARNED

A primary objective of the state demonstration projects is to provide

opportunities for other states and locales to learn from the pilot state experiences. To

this end, the evaluation of the Arizona DMC Initiative identified several lessons learned

from the state and local efforts. There was growing recognition that the DMC issue

must be seen from a systemic perspective rather than a legal, sociological, or service

delivery perspective. Mechanisms for examining DMC issues, including information
I-vi

systems, should be further developed and institutionalized. Arizona's local pilot project

experiences demonstrated the value of involving agency and community

representatives, particularly minority community representatives, in the total DMC

definition, identification, and intervention process. A comprehensive view should also

be taken for planning and funding DMC interventions, including more persons and

service systems than just the juvenile justice system. Intervention strategies should

respond to system needs. Alternative resources should be developed to offset funding

deficits. Finally, Arizona’s Phase II experience demonstrated the importance of

ensuring unbiased political support at the state level so that the state can adequately

support local design and implementation efforts.

FUTURE PLANS

While the continuation of local pilot projects remains uncertain due to the current

absence of future funding, state-level DMC planning and activities will continue. 

Arizona DMC stakeholders are now concentrating their efforts on developing and

institutionalizing a collaborative, systemic approach to addressing DMC. Arizona is

implementing the Juvenile On-line Tracking System (JOLTS) to ensure uniform data

collection and the incorporation of data elements to enable monitoring of the extent of

DMC throughout the state. Arizona is also developing DMC-related training programs

for community and business leaders, juvenile court judges, legislators, educators, law

enforcement officials, and state government employees. Efforts are also focused on

identifying effective DMC programs—both within and outside the state—that can be

replicated or adapted. 
I. INTRODUCTION
I-1

I. INTRODUCTION

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) sponsored,

in five states, demonstration projects that were designed to address problems of

Disproportionate Minority Confinement (DMC) within the juvenile justice system. This

report presents findings from an evaluation of the Arizona DMC project. This chapter

presents relevant background information, an overview of the Arizona demonstration

project, and the purpose and organization of the report. 

1. BACKGROUND

 Findings from a large body of literature suggest that disproportionate minority

confinement occurs within many juvenile justice systems across the nation. Recent

congressional legislation requires states to assess the extent of DMC in their juvenile

justice systems and to develop and implement strategies to address DMC problems

that are found. OJJDP's DMC Initiative seeks to assist states to comply with the

mandate. The Initiative includes support for the development and implementation of

DMC projects in five pilot states, including Arizona. The DMC Initiative also calls for

evaluation of pilot state projects to help OJJDP determine the best methods for

assisting states to comply with the mandate as well as to suggest strategies and

provide useful lessons to non-pilot states that are developing and implementing DMC

projects of their own. The following paragraphs provide a summary of the DMC

literature, followed by a more detailed description of the OJJDP DMC Initiative.

1.1 Summary of DMC Literature

Disproportionate minority confinement is defined by OJJDP as a ratio of "the

share of the juvenile justice population that is minority relative to the share of the at-risk

population that is minority." Since the late 1960s, scores of researchers have

published studies assessing the extent to which DMC exists within the juvenile justice

system. Approximately two thirds of all published studies found evidence of DMC

(Pope and Feyerherm, 1992). One third of the studies, however, did not find evidence

of DMC. Researchers note that inherent methodological difficulties contributed to the

inconsistent findings. Another factor contributing to the inconsistent findings may be

that most DMC studies were restricted to one stage in system processing (Bishop and

Frazier, 1988). Such an approach, several authors contend, fails to measure the

"cumulative disadvantage" to minority youth within a juvenile justice system. Although

race may have a small, statistically nonsignificant effect on decision-making at
I-2

particular stages, race may still have a significant, cumulative effect on outcomes (Zatz,

1987).

Approximately one third of all DMC studies found an overall pattern of DMC

while an equal proportion of studies found DMC only at particular points within the

juvenile justice system (Pope and Feyerherm, 1992). Many researchers believe that

DMC is most pronounced at the "front end" of the juvenile justice system, yet few DMC

studies have focused on the front end (Conley, 1994). Measuring the racial bias that

occurs when police officers decide which juveniles to question—or when citizens, social

workers, and school officials decide to alert authorities to delinquent behavior—is

fraught with methodological challenges (Sampson, 1986). 

Studies finding evidence of DMC typically ascribed its causes to either:

(1) systematic racial bias against minority youth within the juvenile justice system; or

(2) more serious and/or more frequent offenses being committed by minority youth. 

Both explanations were considered legitimate in the Federal DMC legislation that

followed. 

1.2 OJJDP's DMC Initiative

The 1988 amendments to the OJJDP Act included a requirement to states

participating in the OJJDP Formula Grants Program to address the growing problem of

the disproportionate confinement of minority youth in secure facilities. The 1992

amendments to the OJJDP Act included a mandate requiring the states to assess the

level of minority youth confinement in their juvenile justice systems and implement

strategies to reduce disproportionate representation. To facilitate the states' ability to

comply with the mandate of the OJJDP Act, OJJDP established the DMC Initiative. 

Through a competitive process, OJJDP selected five states—Arizona, Florida, Iowa,

Oregon, and Arizona—to receive training, technical, and financial assistance. 

The DMC Initiative was designed to include two 18-month phases. During

Phase I, each of the five pilot states assessed the extent of disproportionate

representation in its juvenile justice system and reported the findings to OJJDP. During

Phase II, the pilot states designed strategies to address the disproportionate

representation problems identified during their Phase I assessments. 

Phase II included a National Evaluation of the DMC Initiative. At OJJDP’s

request, Caliber designed and conducted the evaluation in collaboration with pilot state
I-3

representatives and with the national technical assistance providers from Portland

State University. The National Evaluation included separate evaluation reports on

each pilot state and one non-pilot state. 

To complement the pilot states, the National Evaluation eventually will include

the State of Michigan, which developed and implemented a DMC plan without OJJDP

support. The inclusion of Michigan will provide a more robust picture of state efforts to

reduce minority overrepresentation.

The objectives for the National Evaluation are to document the lessons learned

and factors key to the success of state and local efforts, as well as to determine the

efficacy of different types of interventions in reducing the degree of disproportionate

representation. The evaluation findings will be incorporated into training and technical

assistance manuals or other publications that OJJDP will disseminate to all states as a

resource that will assist their planning and implementing approaches to reduce

disproportionate representation of minorities in the juvenile justice system.

2. ARIZONA DMC DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

Arizona's DMC activities began in October 1991 and concluded in the Spring of

1995. During this time period, Arizona DMC project participants completed the Phase I

research, designed an intervention plan in response to the Phase I research findings,

and completed the Phase II activities in accordance with the plan.

Arizona's grantee under OJJDP's DMC Initiative was the Governor's Division for

Children (GDC), the state agency responsible for addressing mandates of the JJDP

Act. To conduct Arizona's DMC initiative, the GDC's State Advisory Group (SAG),

known as the Arizona Juvenile Justice Advisory Council (AJJAC), established the

Equitable Treatment (ET) of Minority Youth Project. To advise AJJAC on DMC-related

activities, AJJAC created the Minority Youth Issues Committee (MYIC), an interagency

group of educators, local government officials, law enforcement representatives, and

private and non-profit service providers. Arizona's Phase I and Phase II activities are

briefly summarized below.

2.1 Phase I Research

Arizona's Phase I research effort generated widespread agreement on the extent

of DMC and increased community awareness of the issue. Arizona's Phase I research
I-4

study was led by a team of researchers from Arizona State University. The researchers

had two major objectives:

• To examine the extent to which race/ethnicity influences juvenile justice

system decision-making

• To examine the extent to which race/ethnicity influences the interactions

between youth, parents, community members, and juvenile justice system

personnel.

The study was based on quantitative analyses of juvenile records as well as qualitative

analyses of input obtained from a series of interviews with key actors within the juvenile

justice system and from a series of community forums attended by hundreds of minority

community members. 

The study found evidence of DMC at several points within the state's juvenile

justice system. The study also identified several potential sources of DMC, including

system barriers to effective parental advocacy on behalf of system-involved youth,

inadequate cultural knowledge and skills among juvenile justice personnel, and limited

communication between minority neighborhoods and juvenile justice system agencies. 

2.2 Phase II Activities

In response to the Phase I research findings, Arizona's Phase II strategy to

address the problem of minority youth over-representation in the juvenile justice system

included the following objectives:

• Solicit and fund community-designed approaches to remedy minority

over-representation

• Develop state-wide DMC intervention programs

• Modify policies, procedures, practices, and legislation that may contribute

to disproportionate minority confinement

• Continue public awareness and education efforts.

State-level Arizona DMC activities focused on attaining the first of the objectives. The

remaining objectives were the focus of local efforts.
I-5

During 1994, AJJAC funded seven community-based DMC programs, located

primarily in the Tucson and Phoenix areas. AJJAC regarded the funding as "seed

money" to foster the development of permanent DMC programs. AJJAC also regarded

the community-based funding approach as an experiment that might yield lessons that

could be applied in developing future DMC programs. Together, the programs targeted

all major minority populations in the state. One of the seven programs targeted juvenile

justice professionals. 

Pilot projects and state-level efforts, their implementation status, and factors that

contributed to or inhibited the Arizona DMC project's success, were the subject of the

evaluation and are described in the body of this report.

3. PURPOSE AND STRUCTURE OF THE EVALUATION REPORT

The purpose of this document is to present Caliber Associates' evaluation

findings on the DMC initiative in Arizona. Chapter II describes Caliber's objectives and

methodology for conducting the evaluation. Chapter III presents evaluation findings on

the state-level component of Arizona's DMC initiative, and Chapter IV presents findings

on community-based pilot project interventions. Finally, Chapter V summarizes key

lessons learned from Arizona's experience which may be applicable to states that are

developing their own DMC initiatives. Throughout the report, specific agencies or

organizations are introduced by name and (in parentheses) by acronym; thereafter,

they are referred to only by acronym. To assist the reader, Appendix A provides an

alphabetical list of organizations and their acronyms.
I-6

REFERENCES

Bishop, D.M. and C. Frazier. "The Influence of Race in Juvenile Justice Processing." 

Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 25(3) 1988.

Conley, D.J. "Adding Color to a Black and White Picture: Using Qualitative Data to 

Explain Racial Disproportionality in the Juvenile Justice System ." Journal of 

Research in Crime and Delinquency 31(2) 1994.

Pope, C. and W. Feyerherm. Minorities and the Juvenile Justice System. Rockville, 

MD: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention, Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse: 1992.

Sampson, R. "Effects of Socioeconomic Context on Offical Reaction to Juvenile 

Delinquency." American Sociological Review 5, 1986.

Zatz, M.S., "The Changing Forms of Racial/Ethnic Biases in Sentencing." Journal of 

Research in Crime and Delinquency 24(1) 69-92, 1987.
II. METHODOLOGY
II-1

II. METHODOLOGY

This chapter describes the overall approach to conducting the evaluation of the

Arizona DMC initiative. The approach was collaboratively developed by Arizona DMC

project staff, Portland State University, and Caliber Associates. The following sections

describe the evaluation design, data collection methods, and analyses.

1. EVALUATION DESIGN

OJJDP requested an evaluation of the Arizona DMC initiative that would support

the National Evaluation objectives—to document lessons learned, to identify factors

facilitating or hindering success, and to determine the efficacy of different types of

interventions—via an approach tailored to Arizona's DMC strategy. Arizona's DMC

initiative focused on developing and implementing several community-based programs,

each serving a population too small for inferential statistical methods to accurately

measure program impacts. Arizona's DMC initiative, however, lent itself to a type of

evaluation research known as formative, or process, evaluation. 

The evaluation team developed a descriptive, qualitative methodology to provide

OJJDP with a comprehensive, in-depth picture of what happened in Arizona—at the

state and local levels—and why. The following evaluation goals were established:

• Document the process used by the state's DMC project team to assess

the extent of DMC in Arizona's juvenile justice system

• Document the process used by the state's DMC project team to assist

state and local acceptance and understanding of the DMC problem

• Document the process used by the state DMC project team to identify

potential sources of DMC

• Document, where possible, the appropriateness of the intervention plans

which emerged from the Phase I research process

• Identify any system or outcome changes related to the DMC initiative

• Identify key issues related to implementing a community-based program

to reduce the disproportionate confinement of minority youth.

The evaluation design was strengthened by inclusion of a research strategy termed

"triangulation." This strategy incorporates multiple measures of a given concept,
II-2

activity, or occurrence. Thus, the Arizona DMC initiative was investigated using

multiple data sources, including document reviews, interviews, and researcher

observations.

2. DATA COLLECTION METHODS AND SOURCES

The evaluation design pursued two distinct levels of inquiry: the state level and

the local level. Given that the interventions must occur at the local level, an intensive

investigation of local environments, activities, perceptions, and plans was essential. 

The state-level inquiries were equally important, however, given that: (1) the DMC

Initiative was initiated by Phoenix; and (2) change must occur at both the state and

local levels to be truly effective.

The foundation of the evaluation design was the set of specific research

questions to be addressed by the evaluation. The evaluation questions assisted in

identifying the data elements required, the data sources from which to obtain the data

elements, and the most appropriate data collection methods. A summary list of

evaluation questions that guided the Arizona DMC evaluation is presented in Exhibit II1, following this page. These evaluation questions amplify the key process questions

identified for the National Evaluation, including:

• What was the extent of disproportionate representation of minority youth

within the Arizona juvenile justice system?

• What were the major factors contributing to disproportionality?

• What strategies were developed for responding to disproportionality?

• What lessons were learned about how to create change?

These broad evaluation questions, together with the more detailed listing provided in

Exhibit II-1, present the critical issues addressed by the Arizona evaluation effort. 

Methods for obtaining information to answer these questions on the state-level

component of the DMC initiative are described below, followed by a description of how

pilot project information was collected.
II-3

EXHIBIT II-1

EVALUATION QUESTIONS, INFORMATION SOURCES, AND DATA COLLECTION METHODS

EVALUATION QUESTIONS INFORMATION SOURCES DATA COLLECTION METHODS

• What was the extent of disproportionate representation of Phase I data Document review

minority youth within Arizona? Within individual locales? GDC staff Interviews

Pilot project staff

• How was the Arizona DMC project determined? How was Phase I data Document review

disproportionality defined? How were pilot projects selected? GDC staff Interviews

• What factors were identified as contributing to Phase I data Document review 

disproportionality? What assumptions were made about GDC staff Interviews

causality? Pilot project staff

• Who were/are the major "stakeholders" in the DMC initiative GDC staff Document review 

at the state and local levels? Pilot project staff Interviews

• What efforts were made to assist the DMC stakeholders to Phase I data Document review 

understand and agree upon the extent of DMC at the state GDC staff Interviews

level? At the local level? Pilot project staff

• What was perceived as the most critical event or activity for GDC staff Interviews 

engaging the key DMC stakeholders in the DMC initiative? Pilot project staff

• What were the perceived universal, state, and local system GDC staff Interviews 

factors that might foster over-representation of incarcerated Pilot project staff

youth?

• What activities were planned and used to further the DMC GDC staff Document review 

project? Which activities were perceived to be the most Pilot project staff Interviews 

useful? Least useful?

• What resources were available for state and local DMC GDC staff Document review 

planning and intervention? How were the resources utilized? Pilot project staff Interviews 

• What state or local mechanisms were used to guide the GDC staff Document review 

process? How effective were they? What obstacles were Pilot project staff Interviews 

faced?
EXHIBIT II-1 (Continued)

EVALUATION QUESTIONS, INFORMATION SOURCES, AND DATA COLLECTION METHODS

II-4

EVALUATION QUESTIONS INFORMATION SOURCES DATA COLLECTION METHODS

• What was the process used for state-wide GDC staff Document review 

planning? Who were the key personnel? What Pilot project staff Interviews 

types of events were planned and held? What

were the advantages and disadvantages of the

planning events? What were the outcomes of the

events? 

• How did the pilot projects use Phase I research data? Pilot project staff Interviews 

• How were the pilot projects developed? Who were the key Pilot project staff Document review 

developers? What were the major objectives? What Interviews 

problems were addressed through intervention?

• What were the outcomes of the Arizona DMC initiative? Phase I data Document review 

What future plans have been developed? GDC staff Interviews

Pilot project staff

• What were the outcomes of the individual DMC pilot projects? GDC staff Document review 

What future plans have been developed? Pilot project staff Interviews 

• If the DMC initiative led to changes in the system(s) or in the GDC staff Interviews 

proportion of minority youth who are confined, what factors Pilot project staff

contributed to the changes?

• What lessons should be shared with others trying to GDC staff Interviews 

implement DMC initiatives at the state or local level? Pilot project staff
II-5

2.1 State-Level Data Collection

For the state-level component, data sources included project documents and

interviews with key DMC participants from state government. Documentation on

project-related planning activities and events were obtained from the GDC's Program

Project Specialist. The documents included:

• Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth: A Report on the OverRepresentation of Minority Youth in Arizona's Juvenile Justice System

• Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth Project: Phase I Assessment of

Data Capabilities and Initial Quantitative Data Analysis of DecisionMaking Outcomes

• Governor Fife Symington's Plan to Combat Urban Violence, Gangs, and

Juvenile Crime

• Arizona's supplemental DMC application to OJJDP for funding of Phase II

• Grant applications, scope-of-service contracts, and quarterly reports

related to Arizona's community-based DMC pilot projects.

These documents were reviewed by the evaluation team to enhance its understanding

of Arizona's DMC initiative, to develop chronologies of events, and to assist in refining

the evaluation design and data collection instruments.

In February 1995, a four-person evaluation team conducted on-site visits in the

counties of Pima, Pinal, and Maricopa, where in-depth interviews were conducted with

key state-level leaders of the DMC initiative as well as pilot project staff and

administrators. Interviews with the GDC's Program Project Specialist and Juvenile

Justice Specialist were conducted in Phoenix. These interviews explored both phases

of Arizona's DMC initiative. All interviews were conducted with semi-structured

interview guides that were tailored to each individual situation as appropriate. A copy

of this interview guide is presented in Appendix B. In May and June 1995, follow-up

telephone interviews were conducted with the MYIC Chairperson, and with the thenformer GDC's Program Project Specialist. 
II-6

2.2 Pilot Project Data Collection 

For each of the community-based pilot projects, most data were collected during

on-site visits. From February 6-9, 1995, the evaluation team conducted on-site visits to

the seven DMC pilot projects within the counties of Maricopa, Pinal, and Pima. In

preparation for the on-site visits, the GDC's Program Project Specialist provided the

evaluation team with the names and telephone numbers of pilot project staff or

administrators. For each of the seven pilot projects, requests for interviews were

cordially granted. In most pilot sites, interviews were conducted with at least two

project representatives. Exhibit II-2 describes the individuals interviewed by the

evaluation team.

EXHIBIT II-2

PILOT PROJECT INTERVIEWEES 

GRANTEE TITLE/ DMC PILOT DMC 

ORGANIZATION POSITION PROJECT PROJECT ROLE

Arizona Department of Positive

Education (ADE), Contact

Indian Education Unit Program

• Project Director • Project Director

• Program Specialist • Evaluation

• Volunteer • Staff support

Mothers Against Gangs

(MAG) Program

• Director Apoyo • Program Manager

• Admin. Assistant • Program development

EMPACT-SPC Different 

• Prevention Manager • Supervision

• Prevention Specialist • Program Manager; Youth

A 

Path Counselor

Pima Prevention

Partnership

• Executive Director • Project Director

• Senior Community • Project supervision

Developer

Equal

Treatment

Project

Westside Social Services,

Inc.

• Therapist; Site • Diversion Counselor

Coordinator

• Business Manager • Program development

Juvenile

Diversion

Program

OUR TOWN Family Workshop

Center Project

• Co-coordinator, Parent • Curriculum; Training 

Education

• Co-coordinator, Parent • Curriculum; Training 

Education

Minority

Pinal Hispanic Council • Executive Director Project • Project Director

Esperanza

Pilot site interviews explored all aspects of project design and implementation,

focusing on factors that assisted or hindered implementation, lessons learned from the

implementation experience, and participant impressions of program outcomes. Data

elements were selected based on their ability to describe:
II-7

• Perceptions on the extent of DMC in the locale

• Beliefs concerning the root causes of DMC

• DMC intervention goals

• Key players and activities

• Levels of coordination between state and local DMC stakeholders

• Lessons learned from DMC efforts

• Perceptions of program impact

• Future DMC plans.

Pilot project interviews, like state-level interviews, were conducted using a semistructured data collection instrument with primarily open-ended questions. A copy of

the instrument is presented in Appendix C. 

While on site, the evaluation team collected documentation from pilot project

staff. Such materials included copies of program data collection forms, program

descriptions, and local newspaper clippings on the pilot project activities. Follow-up

project-level data collection continued through May 1995, with the gathering of

additional information on implementation progress and data on project participant

characteristics.

3. DATA ANALYSIS

The types of analyses conducted were driven by the evaluation objectives. For

both the state-level and pilot project components, project documents were analyzed

primarily for background and context information. To ensure a systematic,

comprehensive, and accurate summary of interview data and observation notes, the

evaluation team applied content and consistency analysis techniques. These

techniques involved recording and tabulating responses from individual interviews and

observation notes in a series of matrices. In the matrices, the substance of, or

keywords from, responses from each data source were recorded. Data were tabulated

by each specific question or topic, from each individual source, in order to aggregate

the data and make comparisons. The aggregation of data was a structured but to some

extent judgmental process. Yet the approach yielded an affordable means for providing

a reasonably complete and accurate picture of what happened and why.

For all analyses, the content of individual responses to a specific question or

topic were compared to determine the diversity as well as the commonalities of findings

or experiences reported. One set of data analyses focused on state-level DMC

activities; findings are presented in the next chapter. Another set of analyses focused
II-8

on what happened within each of the seven pilot projects; findings are presented in

Chapter IV. Both sets of analyses revealed the key lessons and formed the foundation

for the evaluation's conclusions, presented in Chapter V.
III.STATE-LEVEL PARTICIPATION

IN ARIZONA'S DMC INITIATIVE
III-1

III. STATE-LEVEL PARTICIPATION IN ARIZONA'S DMC INITIATIVE

The purpose of this chapter is to describe the DMC activities that were initiated

and directed by the state-level participants or "stakeholders" who supported Arizona's

DMC initiative. The chapter begins with a description of the DMC project initiation and

organization. The second section describes the major activities undertaken during

Phase I and describes major outcomes of the Phase I research project. The third

section similarly describes Phase II activities and outcomes. The fourth section

identifies key factors that affected Arizona's DMC initiative. This chapter concludes

with Arizona's future plans for monitoring and addressing DMC.

1. ARIZONA'S DMC INITIATIVE

 Shortly following Arizona's selection as a DMC pilot state, GDC's State Advisory

Group (SAG), known as the Arizona Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee (AJJAC),

established the Equitable Treatment (ET) of Minority Youth Project. To advise AJJAC

on the ET project, AJJAC established the Minority Youth Issues Committee (MYIC). 

Committee members totaled 42, including four of AJJAC's 33 members. As Exhibit III-1

on the next page indicates, MYIC's membership demonstrated an intent to take a

systemic approach to addressing DMC.

AJJAC's primary role was to provide oversight of the DMC initiative while MYIC

led the Phase I research effort and developed the Phase II intervention strategy. GDC

staff helped coordinate Phase I and implement Phase II of the DMC initiative. 

Programs and Projects Specialist Sandra Alvarez provided full-time administrative

support during Phase I and part-time support during Phase II. Due to turnover,

reorganization, or reassignment within GDC, four different Juvenile Justice Specialists

supported DMC activities.

 Many groups from the Phoenix and Tucson areas worked with MYIC on this

project. Researchers from Arizona State University led the Phase I research project. 

An inter-ministerial alliance of clergy, law enforcement agencies, and private and nonprofit service providers assisted with Phase I data collection activities.

Based on interviews with GDC staff and the MYIC chairperson, the major

objectives of the Arizona DMC initiative were to:
III-2

• Determine the extent of DMC within regions of the state

• Explore DMC from several perspectives, including the minority community

perspective, to further define the problem and identify potential solutions

• Increase awareness and understanding of the DMC problem at the state,

county, and local levels

• Develop state-level and community-level resources for addressing DMC.

Another objective of Arizona's DMC initiative was to develop effective interventions for

reducing levels of DMC throughout the state; however, implementation efforts during

the pilot project period were expected to be "experimental."

EXHIBIT III-1

ORGANIZATIONS REPRESENTED ON

THE MINORITY YOUTH ISSUES COMMITTEE

JUVENILE JUSTICE EDUCATION

• Superior Court • Arizona State University 

• Administrative Office of the Courts • Arizona Department of Education 

• Maricopa County Juvenile Court Center • Tucson Unified School District

• Salt River Police Department • High schools

• Phoenix Police Department • Alternative schools

SOCIAL WELFARE GOVERNMENT

• The United Way • Governor's Office of Affirmative Action

• Pima County Interfaith Council • City of Phoenix 

• Tanner Chapel AME Church • Phoenix Parks, Recreation and Library

• Indian Rehabilitation, Inc. Department 

• Westcare, Inc. (private service provider) • Department of Youth Treatment and

• Teen Choice (black family services) Rehabilitation

2. PHASE I RESEARCH ACTIVITIES AND FINDINGS

The ET project's primary objectives during Phase I were to assess the extent of

DMC in the state's two urban counties from a systemic perspective, increase

community awareness of the DMC problem, and educate juvenile justice professionals

on DMC issues. Based on analyses of project materials and interview data, the statelevel DMC stakeholders admirably achieved the Phase I objectives. Arizona's DMC

team generated widespread agreement on the extent of DMC within the state juvenile

justice system and substantially increased community awareness of the DMC issue. 

Below, the process by which the state-level DMC stakeholders conducted Phase I

research is described, followed by a summary of Phase I outcomes.
III-3

2.1 Phase I Processes

Leaders of Arizona's DMC Initiative took a systemic approach to addressing

DMC in the juvenile justice system, an approach that relied upon input from a broad

range of individuals, including representatives from all major state agencies that impact

youth as well as hundreds of representatives from minority communities. To begin

Phase I research, MYIC formed the Data Collection and Analysis Work Group. The

work group was led by an Arizona State University professor in the School of Justice

Studies. Work group members included several researchers from Arizona State

University and from state and local juvenile justice agencies. The work group's major

objectives were:

• To examine the extent to which race/ethnicity influence juvenile justice

system decision-making

• To examine the extent to which race/ethnicity influence the interactions

between youth, parents, community members, and juvenile justice system

personnel.

Reflecting Arizona's systemic approach, the first step in the work group's research

process was to understand and document the system flow of juvenile processing. 

Exhibit III-2, following this page, presents an illustration of juvenile processing in

Arizona, which was developed by the Phase I research team. 

Another preliminary step in the research process entailed assessing the

availability of appropriate data for analysis. Arizona is composed of 15 independent

counties that operate the juvenile court system. The researchers found that

quantitative juvenile court data were not compatible across counties. Further, data

collection in rural counties was particularly inadequate for the purposes of analysis. 

Due to these constraints, MYIC directed the Data Collection and Analysis Work Group

to focus Phase I research activity on the state's two urban counties, Pima and

Maricopa. Together, the two counties account for approximately 80 percent of all

justice system involved youth in Arizona. In 1990, the Pima county juvenile court

processed more than 11,000 youth; approximately 46 percent were minority. Maricopa

County processed more than 29,000 youth; approximately 54 percent were minority.

Research within the urban counties was conducted by three groups of Data

Collection and Analysis Work Group investigators. Each group pursued a different

method of inquiry. 
III-4
III-5

The first group of investigators assessed descriptive statistics to indicate the

proportion of minority youth at each decision point in the justice system. Multivariate

regression was employed to measure the impact of race or ethnicity on justice system

decisions, holding certain variables—such as age, gender, prior records, and

seriousness of offense—constant. The regression technique measured the impact of

race/ethnicity on specific decision points. 

A second research team, which included GDC's Juvenile Justice Specialist and

the Programs and Projects Specialist, conducted confidential interviews with key

actors, including direct youth service providers, educators, interested community

members, and juvenile justice system involved families. Interviews were conducted in

Maricopa and Pima Counties between September 1992 and May 1993. The interviews

were arranged by juvenile justice consultants based in each county. “Snowball”

sampling resulted in the participation of 185 people with various perspectives on

juvenile justice in Arizona. The interviews were conducted using interview guides with

20 open-ended questions, which revolved around the following topics:

• Case-processing steps and the discussant's role in case processing and

policy-making

• Concerns over DMC and factors thought to account for it

• Evidence of DMC at various case-processing stages

• Policy and/or resource shifts affecting youth of color in the juvenile justice

system.

Questions were also designed to elicit suggestions on how the juvenile justice system

should respond to the problem.

A third research group conducted 11 community forums in Pima and Maricopa

Counties. The main purpose of the forums was to present quantitative findings of the

Phase I research in order to get feedback/comments from the participants and their

suggestions for addressing the problem of minority overrepresentation. The forums

were co-sponsored by MYIC and the Arizona Probation, Parole, and Corrections

Association. Researchers organized the forums with the aid of "grass-roots

mobilizers," minority community leaders residing in each county. The forums were

facilitated by county DMC stakeholders, including university administrators, law

enforcement officials, clergy, city government leaders, and many private and non-profit

service providers. More than 500 community members participated in the eight forums.
III-6

Three forums in each county were conducted in racial/ethnic affinity groups, one

for Hispanics, one for African Americans, and one for Native Americans. Forums for

Native Americans were held on Native American reservations. Forums for Hispanic

participants were held within predominantly Hispanic communities; similarly, forums for

African American participants were held in residential areas where African Americans

represented a majority of the inhabitants. Although Pacific Islanders represent the

fourth largest minority group in Arizona, MYIC deemed the size of the population to be

too small to warrant a community forum for only Pacific Islander participants. 

One forum in each county was conducted with a multi-ethnic group of

participants. Finally, three "Youth Forums" were held for multi-ethnic groups of middle

school students.

2.2 Phase I Outcomes

Research findings from all three components of Arizona's research project

concurred on the existence of DMC within some—but not all—parts of the state's

Juvenile Justice System. Each component of the research project produced uniquely

useful findings for developing an appropriate Phase II intervention strategy. According

to GDC staff, MYIC accepted the research findings with confidence and without

request for revisions. AJJAC members also expressed confidence in the soundness of

the study. In addition, the research project increased community awareness of the

DMC problem and benefitted juvenile justice professionals by drawing attention to the

DMC issue and by highlighting the need for improved data collection systems. 

Findings from each component of the research study are presented below, followed by

a summary of additional benefits resulting from Phase I research.

Phase I Research Findings

Analyses of quantitative data revealed a complicated DMC pattern, the key

findings from which are presented in Exhibit III-3, following this page. The existence or

extent of minority overrepresentation varied based on ethnic and system factors. Some

findings on DMC varied by county. In both counties, however, DMC was most strongly

indicated at the stage within the justice system when a decision is made on whether to

file a petition based on the charge for which a youth has entered—or re-entered—the

juvenile justice system.
III-7

EXHIBIT III-3

QUANTITATIVE FINDINGS FROM ARIZONA'S PHASE I RESEARCH

• Overrepresentation was neither universal nor uniform. The nature and extent of differential

treatment varied between Anglo and minority youth, among minority youth, and from point to point

in the juvenile justice system.

• The effects of differential treatment were cumulative. Decisions at one stage influenced

subsequent decisions. Minority youth were more likely than Anglo youth to receive outcomes that

moved them further into the system.

• In Maricopa County, almost 71% of African American males, but only 43% of Hispanic males and

39% of Anglo males, would have a record by the time they reach 17 years of age.

• Race/ethnicity had statistically observable impacts at eight decision points within the juvenile justice

system, based on 15 multivariate analyses that held other known influences contant.

• African American and Hispanic identity did not have a significant impact on detention decisions

when other known influences were held constant. Native American youth, however, were more

likely than Anglo youth to be detained. The most important predictive characteristic for detention

decisions was the average number of previous detentions.

• Hispanic identity and African American identity were both significant predictors of having petitions

filed. After other known influences were accounted for, Hispanic youth were 9 percent more likely

and African American youth were 7 percent more likely than Anglo youth to have petitions filed.

• Race or ethnic identity affected the likelihood of having petitions dismissed. After other known

influences were accounted for, African American youth and Hispanic youth were less likely than

Anglos to have their petitions dismissed.

• Race/ethnicity was not statistically predictive of commitment to the Department of Youth Treatment

and Rehabilitation (DYTR); similarly, race/ethnicity did not significantly affect remands to adult

court. 

Analyses of interviews with youth, parents, youth advocates, educators, and

private service providers as well as officials from law enforcement, court, and juvenile

institutions, identified several potential sources of DMC. Analyses of the 185 interviews

surfaced 10 key issues, which are indicated in Exhibit III-4 on the next page.

Analyses of discussions that occurred during the eight community forums

echoed many of the concerns that had been raised by the interviewees, including the

perception that race plays a major role in discriminatory case handling. Community

forum participants emphasized concerns about: (1) the lack of effective communication

between juvenile justice system personnel and minority communities; and (2) the

under-representation of minorities in key policy- and decision-making positions.
III-8

EXHIBIT III-4

INTERVIEW FINDINGS FROM ARIZONA'S PHASE I RESEARCH

• Feelings of system-wide discrimination against • Gang labelling by system officials, and lack of

youth of color understanding of reasons for actual gang

• System barriers to effective parental advocacy

on behalf of system-involved youth • Belief that consideration of prior policy

• Inadequate language skills and cultural determinants in case-handling decisions is a

understanding among system administrators racially discriminatory practice

and field staff

• Withdrawal of juvenile justice system agencies and practices, and the need to involve youth

from contact and involvement in poor directly in system policy-making

neighborhoods

• Crisis in neighborhood-based education, for improved coordination among system

vocational, cultural, recreational, employment, administrators in the allocation of resources.

medical, and behavioral health resources for

youth of color.

involvement

contacts and court referrals as major

• Attitudes of youth toward system agencies

• Limited system resources and the critical need

The Arizona project team distinguished its research effort by establishing and

maintaining a policy of presenting data findings to the source agencies and interest

groups for their education and feedback before presenting findings publicly. The

project staff are confident that this policy helped build the foundation for cooperation

among various actors to address the overrepresentation of minority youth in Arizona's

justice system.

Additional Benefits of Phase I

The Phase I research study produced several other benefits. One benefit was to

increase community awareness of the DMC problem. The data collection process for

Arizona's Phase I research study exposed more than 500 community members to

aspects of the DMC problem during the series of community forums. Community

awareness of the DMC issue was also heightened by media coverage of several

Phase I events. 

The Phase I research project also educated juvenile justice professionals on the

DMC issue. State-level DMC stakeholders briefed administrators of all relevant state

agencies on the DMC initiative and made presentations on DMC at several youth

service conferences. Also, many juvenile justice professionals participated in the

community forums and/or other aspects of the Phase I research project.
III-9

The Phase I research project inspired serious commitment to addressing the

DMC problem. Compelling evidence lies in the number of unsolicited requests for

copies of the Phase I research report that MYIC has received. MYIC has responded to

more than 400 such requests. In June 1995, the MYIC chairperson reported that MYIC

was still receiving regular requests for copies of the report.

The Phase I research project also encouraged some organizations to address

DMC issues independently. For example, the Phase I research reportedly caused the

Maricopa Juvenile Court Center to create a Citizens' Advisory Board to assist in

defining service needs for the court system. Similarly, the Arizona Commission on

Minorities is currently investigating ways that it can address the DMC problem. It was

also reported that several state and local agencies that serve youth are now using the

recommendations contained in the Phase I report as a planning tool for developing

DMC interventions.

Moreover, the Phase I research effort resulted in widespread acknowledgement

that the state's information systems need improvement. State-level DMC stakeholders

have undertaken several projects to improve information systems within Arizona. DMC

stakeholders from DYTR are seeking to include minority-related data elements in

DYTR's new juvenile on-line tracking system. Partially as a result of the DMC initiative,

the Arizona Supreme Court has begun implementation of a state-wide data collection

system, the Juvenile On-line Tracking System (JOLTS). Through the efforts of statelevel DMC stakeholders, JOLTS will include several data elements on minority youth.

Finally, the Phase I study helped produce agreement among most state-level

DMC stakeholders that Phase II intervention strategies should address systemic

sources of DMC within the juvenile justice system as well as socio-economic factors

within minority communities. Arizona's Phase II strategy is described in the next

section.

3. PHASE II PLANS AND ACTIVITIES

MYIC considered several approaches to addressing the problem of minority

youth overrepresentation in the juvenile justice system. Ultimately, MYIC selected a

Phase II intervention strategy that focused on developing community-based pilot

projects within seven locales. MYIC funded 1-year pilot projects that targeted particular

minority groups and various sources of DMC. Pilot project interventions were in

congruence with Phase I findings, which suggested both systemic and socio-economic
III-10

causes of DMC. MYIC's intent was to learn lessons from the pilot projects that could be

applied in developing future DMC projects. MYIC also hoped that the pilot projects

would evolve into self-sustaining, permanent DMC programs. By the end of the Phase

II project period, however, most pilot projects were not expected to continue, and statelevel planning and activities had diminished. In fact, MYIC formally disbanded in

September 1994. Moreover, in February 1995, GDC eliminated the position of

Programs and Projects Specialist, the only position within the agency significantly

dedicated to DMC issues. 

The approaches that MYIC considered or implemented to address DMC

included:

• Continuing public awareness and education efforts

• Modifying laws, policies, or procedures 

• Developing state-wide DMC intervention programs

• Funding community-based pilot programs to reduce DMC.

In regard to each of the above approaches, the major activities undertaken by MYIC

and the other state-level DMC stakeholders, are respectively described below. 

3.1 Continuing Public Awareness and Education

MYIC believed that increased public awareness of DMC would impel communityled efforts to address the problem. MYIC also believed that DMC would be reduced by

educating juvenile justice professionals on potential systemic sources of DMC. 

Therefore, during Phase II, MYIC engaged in several efforts to increase public

awareness and educate juvenile justice professionals.

Community awareness of DMC was increased through MYIC's widespread

dissemination of the Phase I research report, Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth: A

Report on the Over Representation of Minority Youth in Arizona's Juvenile Justice

System. An executive summary of the report was disseminated to participants of the

community forums. Approximately 1,000 copies of the executive summary were

translated into Spanish and disseminated within Hispanic communities throughout the

state. MYIC members also made DMC presentations to government and community

groups, including the Avondale City Council and the Arizona chapter of the National

Association of Social Workers (NASW). In addition, MYIC members and GDC staff

supported the “March for Children of Color,” a yearly, state-wide event to promote

attention to the needs of minority youth. Phoenix activities were sponsored by MYIC,
III-11

the City of Phoenix, and Indian Rehab, Incorporated. GDC's Programs and Projects

Specialist chaired the planning committee and disseminated literature on the ET project

during the event.

MYIC disseminated approximately 700 copies of the full research report to law

enforcement agencies, detention and corrections facilities, and city and county

governments. MYIC members also made a DMC presentation during a conference

held by the Arizona Law Enforcement Agency. In addition, MYIC made copies of

Arizona's DMC research report available during approximately 12 state-wide or national

professional conferences.

Finally, MYIC members utilized state and local media to increase community

awareness of DMC and to educate citizens on the issue. MYIC members discussed

DMC during television and radio interviews throughout the state. The MYIC

chairperson reported that media coverage of the DMC initiative was generally

favorable. 

3.2 Modifying Law, Policies, and Procedures

MYIC established a Policy, Procedure, and Legislation Work Group to explore

opportunities to reduce DMC through state legislation or through modification of county

or local policies and procedures. The work group met informally during the first year of

the DMC initiative. The work group identified three committees within the state

legislature as the most appropriate venues for potential legislation, yet no legislative

proposals were developed. Similarly, the work group did not produce

recommendations for revising county or local policies and procedures. After the work

group disbanded, its responsibilities were rolled into the generic AJJAC function. 

AJJAC, however, was unable to identify potentially fruitful legislative, policy, or

procedural proposals.

3.3 Developing State-Wide DMC Programs

Based on Phase I quantitative analyses, many MYIC members felt strongly that

youth advocacy programs should be established on a state-wide basis. They believed

that an inordinate number of minority parents were unable to function as effective

advocates for their children within the juvenile justice system due to cultural barriers,

language barriers, or ignorance of the justice system. MYIC considered many options

for developing a state-wide mechanism for providing minority youth with effective

advocates within the juvenile justice system.
III-12

One option was to piggyback upon a federally established state-wide program. 

MYIC considered collaborating with the Arizona Supreme Court to add minority youth

within the juvenile justice system to the Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA)

program, which primarily serves dependent children. MYIC believed that CASA staff,

who have substantial credibility within the court system, would make very effective

advocates for minority youth. The plan did not come to fruition due to political and

pragmatic obstacles. First, the plan would have required state legislation and

additional funding. Second, the plan would have required that minority youth receive

preferential access to CASA program services. Third, the plan would have required the

recruitment of many bilingual minority advocates.

MYIC members considered other ways to provide minority youth with effective

advocates. They considered contracting with individuals or agencies familiar with the

court process to provide advocacy services. MYIC also considered developing a cadre

of paid and volunteer minority youth advocates to operate an advocacy program within

each county's Juvenile Court Center. In addition, MYIC considered establishing

"Ombudsmen," who would be independent of the court system. MYIC envisioned that

Ombudsmen would investigate the complaints of justice system involved minority youth

and their families as well as advocate for minority youth. Ultimately, however, MYIC

decided not to establish a state-wide advocacy program. MYIC decided instead to

devote DMC project resources to community-based experiments, described below.

3.4 Funding Community-Based Pilot Projects

Arizona's state DMC leaders strongly believed that a successful intervention

strategy to reduce DMC in Arizona would require community-based commitment. 

Arizona's major Phase II intervention strategy was to fund seven community-designed

approaches to remedy minority overrepresentation. AJJAC regarded the funding as

"seed money" to foster the development of permanent DMC programs. AJJAC also

regarded the community-based funding approach as an experiment that might yield

lessons that could be applied in developing future DMC programs. 

In the Fall of 1993, at the behest of MYIC, AJJAC solicited bids from local

government entities and private non-profit organizations for proposals to respond to the

key findings of the Phase I research. AJJAC accepted proposals from programs

located in any Arizona community where minority overrepresentation had been

documented. AJJAC sought proposals that demonstrated linkages with points of
III-13

contact within the juvenile justice system as well as a willingness to coordinate with an

independent evaluator to implement process and outcome evaluations. AJJAC gave

priority to applications that included specific responses to the Phase I research

findings. AJJAC also gave preferential consideration to proposals that included a local

cash match.

The entire amount of the Federal discretionary grant from OJJDP, or $175,000

dollars, was allocated to fund the programs. To award DMC grants, MYIC formed a

Grants Review subcommittee to make recommendations to AJJAC. From a pool of 20

applicants, AJJAC funded six programs, each for a 12-month grant period; a seventh

DMC program was funded with Federal dollars from the Title II program. Awards

ranged from $9,000 to $22,500. Some of the pilot projects pledged a local cash match.

DMC grants were awarded to programs located in the central or southern

portions of the state in the counties of Pima, Maricopa, and Pinal. Rejected grant

applicants from northern Arizona, particularly from the Flagstaff area, remonstrated. 

MYIC responded that it had not recommended that AJJAC fund DMC programs in

northern Arizona because minority populations were relatively small there.

ET project grantees included the Arizona Department of Education and six

private or non-profit service providers. Together, the funded programs targeted all atrisk minority populations in the state. Some of the programs targeted particular ethnic

groups—Native American, Hispanic, or African American—while other programs served

more than one minority group. One of the seven programs targeted juvenile justice

professionals. 

Several pilot projects addressed perceived antecedents to juvenile problems

such as school failure and family dysfunction. Other pilot projects addressed systemic

problems of the juvenile justice system such as language and education barriers or

cultural insensitivity. Exhibit III-5 on the next page indicates the program titles and key

service that each program provided. The programs are described in detail in Chapter

IV.

During the grant period, calendar year 1994, the GDC Programs and Projects

Specialist monitored the pilot projects and provided technical assistance. Frequency of

contact with the pilot sites varied between sites, primarily due to geographic distance

and patterns of staff turnover within the pilot programs. According to the Programs and

Projects Specialist, five of the seven DMC pilot projects had been successfully
III-14

implemented without facing major obstacles, and most had completed all products and

agreements by the end of the grant period. Two pilot projects were not completed until

early 1995, however, primarily due to internal implementation obstacles.

The DMC project team perceives that the seven pilot projects made a positive

impact on their target populations. Program administrators of two of the pilot projects

had conducted their own outcome studies, which documented positive results. 

EXHIBIT III-5

ARIZONA'S PHASE II PILOT INTERVENTION PROJECTS

PROGRAM NAME KEY SERVICE

• American Indian Family Law Education: • Training about the juvenile justice system for

Positive Contact Program Native American communities 

• Equal Treatment Project • Cultural sensitivity training

• Project Esperanza • Prevention and early intervention programming

• A Different Path Program • Counseling for prevention and early intervention

• Apoyo Program • Training about the juvenile justice system for

monolingual (Spanish-speaking) youth and

families

• Minority Workshop Project • Developing youth/parent cultural support groups

• Juvenile Diversion Program • Counseling for early intervention

According to community leaders, the pilot projects helped develop grass-roots

commitment to address DMC. Based on evaluation interviews with pilot project

administrators, however, leaders of most organizations that implemented DMC pilot

programs have not committed to continuing their programs or providing other DMCrelated services. Most program administrators cited a lack of available funding as the

primary reason why their future DMC objectives were limited or non-existent.

4. KEY FACTORS AFFECTING THE DMC INITIATIVE

State DMC leaders described several factors that affected the DMC initiative. 

Most factors concerned politics, resources, or personnel. The subsection below

describes factors that facilitated the ability of the state-level participants to conduct the

Arizona DMC initiative; the following subsection describes factors that impeded or

hindered their efforts.
III-15

4.1 Facilitating Factors

State-level interviewees agreed that the most important facilitating factor was the

large number of individuals who were adamantly committed to the DMC initiative and

who energetically worked to fulfill the objectives of the DMC initiative. During Phase I,

for example, many MYIC members served as public educators, data collectors, program

developers, and advocates for minority youth within the juvenile justice system. The

most committed MYIC members, according to the Programs and Projects Specialist,

included clergy, academicians from Arizona State University, a juvenile court judge,

City of Phoenix administrators, and three AJJAC members.

The MYIC chairperson perceived that the Arizona DMC team's greatest strength

was "our localized, grass-roots approach." The Arizona state government appeared to

be "letting the people into the process" through the DMC initiative. Through this

process, the DMC initiative apparently generated considerable commitment among

community leaders throughout the state to address the DMC issue.

One of the most noteworthy achievements of the DMC initiative, according to the

interviewees, was to get law enforcement and the minority community "on the same

wavelength." The Phoenix Police Department (PPD) was described as being

particularly supportive and the PPD is now represented on not only MYIC but also

AJJAC.

4.2 Impeding factors

Respondents agreed that "politics" was an important hindering factor. During

the course of the DMC initiative, Arizona state and local elections featured several

candidates who took vocal, "tough on crime" stances. According to the respondents,

several government officials provided limited DMC support because they worried that

the DMC initiative might come to be perceived as "soft on crime." The GDC was

particularly "lukewarm," according to the interviewees, and key administrators were

perceived as not being committed to addressing the DMC issue. GDC provided modest

staff support to the DMC initiative and chose to supplement the Federal DMC grant with

a small amount of in-kind support, rather than supplemental funding—which occurred in

other DMC pilot states.

Respondents also agreed that personnel changes impeded the DMC initiative. 

There was significant downsizing within the GDC over the course of the initiative. GDC
III-16

also experienced frequent turnover in the position of Juvenile Justice Specialist. 

Factors that contributed to personnel turnover in several government positions include

the state and local elections and "politics" in general. In addition, the "job uncertainty"

that preceded elections appeared to have a debilitating effect upon the level of support

provided by elected government office holders as well as other government employees.

Respondents also agreed that a lack of resources impeded the DMC initiative. 

Few organizations devoted substantial resources to the initiative. Many of the state

DMC leaders, including MYIC members and state and local government employees,

served as volunteers.

Another type of impeding factor mentioned by the interviewees was a lack of

support from key individuals or groups. A few government officials reportedly chose

not to support the DMC initiative because they felt that the initiative represented an

accusation of racism. Other officials did not support the initiative because they denied

the possibility that DMC is partially a systemic problem of the Arizona juvenile justice

system. Similarly, some law enforcement agencies insufficiently supported the DMC

initiative. Based on first-hand accounts, many law enforcement personnel reportedly

construed the DMC initiative as an accusation that Arizona's law enforcement agencies

are permeated by racists.

Despite generally favorable media coverage of the DMC initiative, one mediarelated impediment was mentioned. Some journalists in the Tucson area misconstrued

the findings of the DMC report by suggesting that the report found racism permeating

Arizona's constabulary. When several Pima County law enforcement officials vocally

opposed the DMC initiative, based on the inaccurate media coverage, the state DMC

team engaged in "damage control" and worked hard to ensure the continued support of

Pima County law enforcement.

5. FUTURE PLANS FOR MONITORING AND ADDRESSING DMC

 MYIC has not yet developed a coherent state plan to address DMC in the

future. In recent months, however, state-level planning and activities have accelerated. 

MYIC was reconstituted in May 1995; regular meetings have resumed. Arizona's

reconstituted MYIC now contains six AJJAC members as well as several "community

representatives," grass-roots DMC leaders from various minority communities. In

addition, GDC re-created the position of Programs and Projects Specialist, partly to
III-17

support future DMC activity. Arizona's future plans for monitoring and addressing

DMC, therefore, are beginning to take shape.

MYIC has recently embarked upon an agenda to keep the issue of DMC “in the

forefront.” Current plans include scheduling a DMC state-wide training for AJJAC,

MYIC, community and business leaders, juvenile court judges, legislators, educators,

law enforcement officers, and representatives from a host of organizations and

committees that have DMC as a focal point of their agenda. Examples of organizations

include the Maricopa County Juvenile Court Citizens Advisory Board and the Arizona

Supreme Court Commission on Minorities. After the training, MYIC plans to establish

formal linkages with individuals to develop a systemic approach to addressing DMC. In

addition, MYIC plans to revisit the recommendations in the 1993 Equitable Treatment

report and continue efforts to encourage implementation of the recommendations. 

MYIC is also currently coordinating with the state legislature's newly created

Joint Legislative Committee on Child and Family Services to: (1) monitor the

implementation and effectiveness of family services in minority communities; (2) obtain

and respond to the concerns of minority citizens; and (3) disseminate information

generated by the committee that is relevant to the DMC issue. At MYIC’s request, GDC

staff are working with the state juvenile justice corrections officials who are currently

developing new training programs for correctional staff. MYIC hopes to influence the

types of training that will be provided so as to address potential sources of DMC within

a secure confinement setting such as a lack of cultural awareness or understanding. In

addition, MYIC is coordinating with the Arizona Department of Economic Security to

establish training programs with a "cultural diversity" component.

GDC staff are also assisting implementors of the Juvenile On-line Tracking

System (JOLTS), the new, state-wide, on-line system of juvenile justice information. 

DMC leaders are seeking to ensure uniform data collection and that DMC-related

information will be adequately captured in the final set of data elements to monitor the

extent of DMC throughout the state.

In the future, GDC's newly appointed Juvenile Justice Specialist will:

• Provide OJJDP with updated DMC statistics on a regular basis

• Urge pilot DMC programs to complete products and agreements

• Encourage the ET project grantees to revise their DMC programs so as to

apply for Title II funding
III-18

• Present final reports on the pilot projects to AJJAC

• Further educate AJJAC members and community leaders on DMC issues,

perhaps by obtaining technical assistance from relevant experts.

In addition, the Juvenile Justice Specialist will coordinate with MYIC to conduct ongoing

outreach/education efforts. For example, MYIC is currently working to expand the

annual March for Children of Color event (recently renamed the March for Children of

All Color). 

Finally, state DMC leaders are actively searching for funded DMC programs that

appear promising as effective interventions, in hope of replicating or adapting one or

more such programs throughout Arizona. They anticipate that sections of this

evaluation report on Arizona's community-based pilot projects, as well as evaluation

reports on other pilot states included in OJJDP's National Evaluation, will suggest

options for consideration.
IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE PILOT PROJECTS
IV-1

IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE PILOT PROJECTS

The Arizona Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth Project had, as its primary

emphasis, local grass-roots program planning and problem solving. Therefore, the

evaluation focused on the seven pilot projects and the extent to which the projects

achieved their objectives. The purpose of this chapter is to describe the pilot projects

and their accomplishments. The chapter begins with background information, followed

by a summary of the evaluation findings from the seven pilot projects. The chapter

concludes with detailed descriptions of each of the pilot projects.

1. BACKGROUND

Arizona's DMC Phase II activities, as described previously, included requesting

proposals from community-based organizations to design new (or enhance existing)

programs that respond to the key findings of the Phase I research. To provide a

context for the description of Arizona's seven pilot projects, the following paragraphs

provide a summary of Arizona's Phase II grant award process and an overview of the

three participating counties.

1.1 Pilot Project Selection Process

As previously described, AJJAC, through the Governor's Division for Children,

solicited bids from local government entities and private non-profit organizations for

proposals to respond to the key findings of the Phase I research. The Federal

discretionary grant from OJJDP ($175,000) was allocated to fund the programs. The

bid process began in the Fall 1993.

AJJAC accepted proposals from programs located in any Arizona community

where minority over-representation had been documented. AJJAC sought proposals

that demonstrated linkages with points of contact within the juvenile justice system as

well as a willingness to coordinate with an independent evaluator to implement process

and outcome evaluations. AJJAC gave priority to applications that included specific

responses to the Phase I research findings. AJJAC also gave preferential

consideration to proposals that included a local cash match.

This component of Arizona's strategy under Phase II of the DMC initiative was

designed to meet two objectives:
IV-2

• Solicit and fund community-designed approaches to remedy minority overrepresentation

• Work with local programs and agencies to develop and enhance programs

that address DMC.

As described in Chapter III, AJJAC funded seven programs from a pool of 20

applicants for the grant period of the calendar year of 1994. Based on their

applications and other information obtained by AJJAC, the seven projects appeared to

have the necessary characteristics with which to meet the DMC objectives.

1.2 Pilot Project County Environments

The funded programs are located in three counties: Maricopa County, Pima

County, and Pinal County. Below, background information about each of the three

counties is presented.

Maricopa County. Located in the west central portion of the state, Maricopa is

an urban county, containing the city of Phoenix (total population 550,000). While the

poverty rate for the county is near the national average, in cities with high

concentrations of minorities, including Gila Bend, Avondale, Buckeye, and Goodyear,

nearly one quarter of the residents have incomes below the poverty level. The county's

8- to 17-year-old juvenile population is 68 percent Anglo, 24 percent Hispanic, 4

percent African American, and 2 percent Native American. According to the 1990

Census, however, nearly 40 percent of county juveniles, aged 5 to 17, did not speak

English "very well."

The majority of the pilot projects are located in Maricopa County, including:

• American Indian Family Law Education: Positive Contact Program

• EMPACT-SPC: A Different Path Program

• Mothers Against Gangs: Apoyo Program

• Westside Social Services: Juvenile Diversion Program.

These four projects are described in the last section of this chapter.

Pima County. Located in the south central portion of the state, Pima County is

a geographically large county with a total population of approximately 178,000

residents. Its largest city is Tucson. Employment opportunities are limited in some

sections of the county. For example, the unemployment rate in South Tucson is often
IV-3

double, sometimes triple, the national average. In South Tucson, the income of 43

percent of all families is below the poverty level. Nearly one half of the Native

American families in the county have incomes below the poverty level. Approximately

one quarter of Hispanic families and one fifth of African American families in Pima

County live below the poverty level. Among 8- to 17-year-old residents, a slim majority

(55%) are Anglos, slightly more than one third are Hispanics, and African-Americans

and Native Americans each make up 4 percent of this youth population.

Two projects were funded from Pima County. These include:

• Pima Prevention Partnership: Equal Treatment Project

• Our Town Family Center: Minority Workshop Center.

Again, these two projects are described in Section 3.

Pinal County. Located in central Arizona, between the counties of Maricopa

and Pima, Pinal County has a total population of approximately 33,000 residents. More

than one third of the residents live in a rural environment. Nearly 10 percent of county

residents are Native Americans. Nearly 60 percent of Native American families in the

county have incomes below the poverty level; similarly, more that one third of African

American families and one quarter of Hispanic families have incomes below the poverty

level. Employment opportunities are severely limited for residents in some areas. For

example, the 1990 Census reported an unemployment rate of 30 percent in the Gila

River area. Educational opportunities are also limited: just 8 percent of county

residents over the age of 25 have attained a college degree.

One of Arizona's seven DMC projects is located in Pinal County. This project is

operated by the Pinal Hispanic Council and is entitled Project Esperanza.

2. SUMMARY OF EVALUATION FINDINGS

The evaluation of the Arizona ET project focused on the seven pilot projects. 

The purpose of this section is to draw from the individual pilot project evaluations so as

to develop an overall understanding of the ET project and its relationship to DMC. 

Included in this section are:

• A summary of seven pilot projects

• An assessment of projects as DMC interventions

• A summary of process evaluation findings.
Feyerherm, W. Disproportionate Minority Confinement: Lessons Learned from the Pilot State 1

Experiences. Prepared for the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Portland

State University. April 1995.

IV-4

Each of these topics is discussed in the following paragraphs.

2.1 Summary of Seven Pilot Projects

As previously stated, the Arizona ET project funded the following seven local

projects:

• American Indian Family Law Education: Positive Contact Program

• EMPACT-SPC: A Different Path Program

• Mothers Against Gangs: Apoyo Program

• Our Town Family Center: Minority Workshop Project

• Pima Prevention Partnership: Equal Treatment Project

• Pinal Hispanic Council: Project Esperanza

• Westside Social Services: Juvenile Diversion Program.

A description of these projects, including the project emphasis, project status, and

funding level, is summarized in Exhibit IV-1 on the next page and described briefly

below.

Project Emphasis

Determining the appropriateness of a DMC intervention depends on the

underlying assumptions of the causes of the problem and factors that contribute to the

problem. One AJJAC assumption as to an appropriate DMC intervention is that it be

community-based because problems of DMC are best resolved through a grass-roots,

"bottom-up" approach rather than via a "top-down" approach. All of the seven pilot

projects satisfy the community location requirement; in fact, all but one of the grantees

are community-based organizations.

While the seven pilot projects were unique in their programmatic approach to

solving DMC, the projects shared some common characteristics. For example, the

primary emphases of the seven projects could be categorized as follows:

• Systemic change: It is increasingly understood that DMC must be seen from

a systemic perspective rather than a legal, sociological, or service delivery

perspective. Only one pilot project developed an intervention that was 1
IV-5

clearly directed toward changing the juvenile justice system (Pima

Prevention Partnership).

• Systemic change through understanding: Several projects attempted

systemic changes through the education of families if not agency personnel. 

These projects were based on the premise that minority communities and

families could more effectively "work the system" with better understanding

of how the system works. Organizations that developed projects with this

emphasis include: American Indian Family Law Education, Mothers Against

Gangs, and Our Town.

• Diversion: A third approach to remedy problems of DMC is to divert youth

from the juvenile justice system, or, once they have system involvement,

divert youth from incarceration. These projects focus on strengthening a

youth's skills, self-esteem, and ability to forgo violent acts, substance

abuse, and gang activity. Organizations that developed projects with this

focus include: EMPACT, Pinal Hispanic Council, and Westside Social

Services.

The specific approach and activities for the seven pilot projects is summarized in

Exhibit IV-1 and described, in detail, at the conclusion of this chapter.

Project Status

An important question addressed by the evaluation was whether the projects

completed implementation of the program or developed products as planned. A review

of the implementation status demonstrated that the seven pilot projects, for the most

part, completed the work for which they received a grant.

In fact, only two projects were incomplete: American Indian Family Law

Education and Mothers Against Gangs. The product for each of these projects was a

manual and the provision of training on the use of the manual. While the status of

these projects is discussed in detail later, the overall evaluation finding was that the

manual development process was under-funded and, consequently, understaffed.

Funding Levels

The ET grants awarded to the seven pilot projects were relatively small, ranging

in amount from $9,000 to $22,500. This level of funding would not cover a full-time
EXHIBIT II-1 (Continued)

EVALUATION QUESTIONS, INFORMATION SOURCES, AND DATA COLLECTION ME

IV-6

staff person's annual salary; it was understood from the outset that these grants would

be used to supplement or combine with other resources.
IV-6

EXHIBIT IV-I

ARIZONA'S DMC PROJECT: EQUITABLE TREATMENT OF MINORITY YOUTH IN JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM

SUMMARY OF SEVEN PILOT PROJECTS

PROJECTS FUNDED AMOUNT/SOURCE OF FUNDS PROJECT EMPHASIS PROJECT STATUS

DMC OTHER TOTAL

AMERICAN INDIAN FAMILY LAW $10,323 $4,713 $15,036 SYSTEMIC CHANGE THROUGH EDUCATION Conducted research and interviews to

EDUCATION: POSITIVE CONTACT • Increase the understanding of the juvenile justice system support the draft development of the

PROGRAM with a focus on Native American communities through hardback book "You Decide." The

law-related training of children and their parents. manual is in draft form and is being

reviewed by juvenile justice system

experts.

EMPACT-SPC: A DIFFERENT $17,500 $2,573 $20,073 DIVERSION Program focused on cultural identity

PATH PROGRAM • Decrease the likelihood of incarceration for youth at Mesa issues and educational and vocational

Vista Junior High School who have had a family member needs as ways of addressing the

incarcerated. economic factors contributing to

• Provide assessment of referred (at-risk) juveniles within delinquency. 59% of participants are

48 hours. minority youth; 72% of participants

• Provide peer and/or family group counseling. remained in school at end of year.

MOTHERS AGAINST GANGS: $15,000 [IN-KIND] $15,000 SYSTEMIC CHANGE THROUGH EDUCATION Training manual is currently in draft form. 

APOYO PROGRAM ($24,000)* • Improve the interface between monolingual (Spanish- Sections include materials on community

speaking) youth/families and the juvenile justice system. education, court advocacy, support

• Develop a training model that includes services and services, and background information on

resources to train monolingual Spanish-speaking parents Mothers Against Gangs.

to become effective advocates for youth.

• Develop materials in Spanish that can be used by

monolingual families to learn how the juvenile justice

system is structured and the process by which various

options can be utilized at key decision points.

OUR TOWN FAMILY CENTER: $9,000 $7,277 $16,277 SYSTEMIC CHANGE THROUGH EDUCATION This project focused on Black Parenting

MINORITY WORKSHOP PROJECT ($27,277)* • Assist families in developing parenting and youth cultural and Parenting for Single Moms

support skills. Workshops. Participants completed a 6-

• Create community sites at locations with high levels of hour train-the-trainers workshop and

court referrals of minority youth. facilitated sessions for 26 parents and 18

• Develop and train youth/parent cultural support groups, children. The popularity of the workshops

and train minority community volunteers to conduct reflects the need for the program.

support groups.

• Seek out local role models and professional support to

create a training support program at each site.

* Original request
EXHIBIT IV-I (Continued)

ARIZONA'S DMC PROJECT: EQUITABLE TREATMENT OF MINORITY YOUTH IN JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM

SUMMARY OF SEVEN PILOT PROJECTS

IV-7

PROJECTS FUNDED AMOUNT/SOURCE OF FUNDS PROJECT EMPHASIS PROJECT STATUS

DMC OTHER TOTAL

PIMA PREVENTION $22,500 $27,500 $50,000 JJS SYSTEMIC CHANGE Established a Multicultural Committee to

PARTNERSHIP: EQUAL • Establish a Community Outreach Work Group that will address over-representation. Also, 1,000

TREATMENT PROJECT produce a 10-minute informational videotape on court Tucson Police Department personnel are

procedures, legal options, and available community targeted for training in a 4-hour cultural

services. communications curriculum; 400 have

• Create a curriculum for cultural sensitivity training with been trained. Five community forums

project partners: police, court staff, volunteers. have been held.

• Continue dialogue with the community by hosting

community forums.

PINAL HISPANIC COUNCIL: $16,351 $15,853 $32,204 DIVERSION This project served 48 youth, of which

PROJECT ESPERANZA • Focus on the pre-arrest stage of juveniles. 75% were Hispanic, 12% African

• Provide counseling, case management, emergency/crisis American, 10% Caucasian, and 3%

intervention and alternative activities. Native American. Referrals were made

by the Eloy Police Department and

schools. One half were juvenile

offenders; 45 completed the program.

WESTSIDE SOCIAL SERVICES: $9,000 $2,500 $11,500 DIVERSION The 8-week counseling program was

JUVENILE DIVERSION PROGRAM • Provide counseling and resources to first-time offenders. targeted for at-risk youth residing in

• Develop 8-week counseling program. Avondale, Goodyear, and Litchfield Park. 

• Teach communication, awareness, behavior control, and Counseling and community resources

role play skills. were provided to first-time offenders and

• Develop a youth speakers bureau. youth at risk. 51% of the participants

were minority youth, and referrals were

received from Juvenile Court, schools,

social services, and youth.
IV-9

In fact, six of the seven projects were able to provide matching funds; the

amount of the match ranged from $2,500 to $27,500. Once combined, the total project

funding ranged from $11,500 to $50,000. Excluding the $50,000 project, the average

funding level per project was $18,348.

An assessment of funding levels for the seven pilot projects, particularly in light

of the project's plans and status, reveals the relative importance of adequate funding. 

Community-based organizations tend to operate on shoestring budgets and annual

funding cycles. The size of the community-based organization that operated the pilot

project, together with the size of the ET grant, appeared to be a reliable determinant of

the extent to which the project could be completed as planned.

For example, a larger organization such as the Pinal Hispanic Council, which

has a relatively stable major funding source, is better equipped to operate a program

with a $16,351 ET grant than a smaller organization. The Pinal Hispanic Council was

able to "match" the ET grant for a total DMC project budget of $32,204. When there

was DMC project staff turnover, the council was able to fill in with other staff resources.

In contrast, Mothers Against Gangs (MAG) is a relatively new organization with

fragmented funding and an over-reliance on volunteer labor. The MAG staff were

unable to leverage their $15,000 ET grant because there were no matching funds. 

Plus, the MAG project depended on volunteer staff.

Availability of resources and funding levels are always an issue for communitybased organizations. The Arizona ET evaluation found, however, that the extent to

which funding levels are problematic is relative to an organization's size and

experience.

2.2 Assessment of Projects As DMC Interventions

The OJJDP DMC demonstration project was designed in two phases so that the

Phase II interventions could reflect the findings from the Phase I research into DMC

causes. The Arizona DMC evaluation reviewed the Phase I research findings and

compared these findings with the Phase II pilot projects. The results of this comparison

are presented in Exhibit IV-2 on the next page and described below.

As reported in Chapter III, the Arizona Phase I DMC research included

interviews with 185 representatives from the community and from the juvenile justice
IV-10

system, including direct youth service providers, educators, community representatives,

and 
IV-9

EXHIBIT IV-2

ARIZONA'S DMC PROJECT: EQUITABLE TREATMENT OF MINORITY YOUTH IN JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM

EXTENT TO WHICH PILOT PROJECTS ADDRESS ISSUES IDENTIFIED IN PHASE I

ISSUES IDENTIFIED IN PHASE I LAW AGAINST FAMILY PREVENTION HISPANIC SOCIAL

RESEARCH EDUCATION EMPACT-SPC GANGS CENTER PARTNERSHIP COUNCIL SERVICES

AMERICAN

INDIAN FAMILY MOTHERS OUR TOWN PIMA PINAL WESTSIDE

System-wide discrimination against X X X X

youth of color

Systemic barriers to effective parental X X X X X

advocacy on behalf of system-involved

youth

Inadequate language skills and cultural X X X

understanding among system

administrators and field staff

Withdrawal of juvenile justice agencies X X

from contact and involvement in poor

neighborhoods

Lack of behavioral health resources for X X X

youth of color

Lack of appreciation of the influence of X X X X

the family and the need for familyoriented treatment for youth of color

Problem of gang labeling by system X X

officials; lack of understanding of

reasons for gang involvement

Perception that race influences case- X X X

handling decisions with law enforcement

and judiciary

Attitudes of youth toward juvenile justice X X X

system

Limited system resources; need for X X

improved coordination among JJS in the

allocation of resources
IV-12

families. The interviews included factors thought to contribute to DMC. This inquiry

surfaced 10 key issues, which are presented in Exhibit IV-2.

As shown, each of the seven pilot projects addresses at least three of the key

issues and most address four or more issues. This analysis indicates that the seven

projects selected for the ET project were appropriate interventions, based on the

Phase I research.

2.3 Summary of Process Evaluation Findings

The primary evaluation approach used for the seven pilot projects was a process

evaluation, which focused on the implementation process for each project. As part of

the process evaluation, project objectives were identified and the extent to which each

project met or achieved the objectives was assessed. In addition, factors that

contributed to the successful implementation were identified, as were obstacles to the

implementation. The future plans for the projects were also identified to determine if

the Arizona DMC initiative will have a lasting effect at the local level. Detailed

evaluation findings are presented at the conclusion of this chapter. A summary of the

evaluation, however, is presented in Exhibit IV-3 on the next page and highlighted

below.

For five of the seven pilot projects, all of the project objectives were realized

within the grant period. As stated previously, only the American Indian Family Law

Education project and the Mothers Against Gangs project had substantially underachieved in meeting project objectives. The evaluation found that the production of the

two manuals required more resources than originally planned.

Project staff from the seven pilot projects identified several strengths or factors

that contributed positively to implementation success. Foremost among the positive

factors was the commitment of agency staff, other community agencies, and the

constituent population to attaining project objectives. One of the most successful

community-based projects, the Pima Prevention Partnership, identified the following

success-related factors:

• Broad-based involvement in the Phase I research, which assisted a common

understanding of DMC and its causes
IV-13

• Consensus among the community "partners" as to the most important

intervention—one that creates systemic change

• High level of commitment among PPP staff together with staff from other

agencies.

Similarly, the Pinal Hispanic Council credits much of Project Esperanza's success to

community linkages and cooperation, particularly among law enforcement personnel.

Other factors that appear to have assisted successful implementation include the

fact that several agencies had similar, previous project experiences, and staff knew

"what works, what doesn't." Staff capability and client rapport also contributed to

project success.

Several factors were identified as barriers or obstacles to the projects' success. 

Staff turnover (paid and volunteer) and a lack of resources in general were frequently

identified factors. The type of referral was also problematic for two projects; additional

explanations were required for the referral sources to understand the DMC project

requirements. Other barriers were project-specific and included such factors as: (1) no

sanctions for non-attendance at workshops; (2) length of time needed for new systems

to fully take hold at community levels; and (3) lack of quality data from Native

Americans and state juvenile justice systems.

Future plans for the seven projects are hopeful yet uncertain. Staff from the two

projects that are developing manuals and training are committed to the projects'

completion. Four projects are actively pursuing additional funding to continue the

operation of the DMC project.
IV-11

EXHIBIT IV-3

ARIZONA'S DMC PROJECT: EQUITABLE TREATMENT OF MINORITY YOUTH IN JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM

SUMMARY OF PROCESS EVALUATION FINDINGS

PROJECT OBJECTIVES ACHIEVED? STRENGTHS OBSTACLES FUTURE

OBJECTIVES

American Indian • Develop culturally- Partial draft • Willingness of Native • Staff turnover AED is committed to

Family Law Education: based, juvenile-parent American families, JJS, • Lack of data from completing manual,

Positive Contact handbook school, to work together tribal and state JJS conducting training

Program • Use handbook to No • Former experience in • Awkward, timeconduct training for training consuming grant

community • Technical assistance application process

from ET • Low-level resources

EMPACT-SPC: A • Cultural training for Yes • Counselors able to • Inappropriate referrals • Partial program

Different Path Program youth develop rapport with • Lack of DMC continuation

• Peer and family group Yes youth understanding at • Seeking additional

counseling • Ongoing involvement of referral source funding

• Parent group Partial project designer • Tension among staff

meetings due to different

missions, experience

Mothers Against • Provide resource Partial • Dedication of MAG staff • Lack of resources • Complete manual

Gangs: Apoyo manual to mono- to project • Volunteer staff • Train volunteers

Program lingual parents about • Community commitment turnover • Disseminate manual

JJS

• Provide training No

• Disseminate manual No

Our Town Family • Recruit, train Yes • Used “tried and true” • No sanctions for non- • SM class to continue

Center: Minority volunteers curriculum attendance • Future of EBP class

Workshop Project • Identify appropriate Yes • Previous agency • Too little time to fully is uncertain

curriculum for EBP, experience in parent implement or gain

SM classes education community

• Provide training Yes acceptance

• Gain community Partial

acceptance
EXHIBIT IV-3 (Continued)

ARIZONA'S DMC PROJECT: EQUITABLE TREATMENT OF MINORITY YOUTH IN JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM

SUMMARY OF PROCESS EVALUATION FINDINGS

IV-12

PROJECT OBJECTIVES ACHIEVED? STRENGTHS OBSTACLES FUTURE

OBJECTIVES

Pima Prevention • Establish Community Yes • Phase I participation • Lack of support from • Lasting impact from

Partnership: Equal Outreach group • Understanding of DMC; state staff training and Teen

Treatment Project • Produce video Yes systemic causes • Isolation from other Court

• Develop training Yes • Clear agreement on six pilot sites

• Conduct five forums Yes interventions

• Provide training Yes • High-level commitment,

coordination among

partners

Pinal Hispanic Council: • Establish community Yes • Phase I participation • Initial low level of • Continuing to pursue

Project Esperanza links • Understanding systemic referrals additional resources

• Provide services causes • Lack of on-going to continue program

- Counseling Yes • Previously established funding

- Alternative Yes community relationships

activities • Size, experience of

- Follow-up Yes council

- Aftercare Yes • Program design

Westside Social • Teach skills to avoid Yes • Wide community support • Length of time to • Seek additional

Services: Juvenile drugs, gangs, JJS • Prior experience with develop court system funding

Diversion Program • Provide 24 hour Yes program approach mechanisms • Continue to provide

counseling • Low level of funding services

• Develop Youth Yes

Speakers Bureau
IV-16

Finally, with no exceptions, all staff associated with the seven pilot projects

demonstrated a high level of DMC understanding and an equally high level of

commitment to resolving the DMC problems. The frustration among all staff is caused

by the lack of resources with which to continue to operate projects that, in the opinions

of these staff, have demonstrated success.

3. SEVEN PILOT PROJECTS

This section describes the seven pilot projects funded in Phase II of the ET

project. Seven organizations were funded for a 12-month grant period to plan and

implement pilot projects that were developed to respond to the key findings of the

Phase I research. The seven pilot projects are described in alphabetical order:

• American Indian Family Law Education: Positive Contact Program

• EMPACT-SPC: A Different Path Program

• Mothers Against Gangs: Apoyo Program

• Our Town Family Center: Minority Workshop Center

• Pima Prevention Partnership: Equal Treatment Project

• Pinal Hispanic Council: Project Esperanza

• Westside Social Services: Juvenile Diversion Program.

Each pilot project description includes the sponsoring organization, the pilot project's

goals and objectives, funding and resources, staffing, facilities, program capacity,

activities during the grant period, facilitating factors and obstacles, and any future

plans.

3.1 American Indian Family Law Education: Positive Contact Program

The American Indian Family Law Education: Positive Contact Program is

intended to provide Native American middle school students and their families with:

(1) increased knowledge of the law, including tribal, state, and Federal systems; and

(2) improved understanding of their rights, responsibilities, roles, and options in regard

to the juvenile justice system. By instilling this type of knowledge and understanding,

this program hypothesizes that Native American families may increase their utilization

of social service and justice system-related resources, recognize their rights more

easily, and exercise their options more effectually.
IV-17

Sponsoring Organization

The Arizona Department of Education (ADE), Indian Education Unit (IEU) chose

to become involved with the ET initiative because of the role that educational

institutions play in instilling citizenship and developing productive adults. ADE

theorized that a school-based program about the tribal and state juvenile justice

systems would fill a vital role for Native American youth, who are often unprepared to

make informed decisions in these areas. Based on the ADE staff's knowledge of the

Phase I data, their participation in the Phase I community forums, and their perception

of the community's misunderstanding of cultural differences, ADE submitted a proposal

for an ET sub-grant.

Pilot Project Goals and Objectives

While the focus of the pilot project is a law-related educational program for

Native American youth and their families, a supplementary component includes the

fostering of partnerships between Native American families, their communities, and

juvenile justice system staff. Major goals of the program, according to program staff,

include:

• Teaching youth how to consider consequences in positive and appropriate

ways

• Teaching Native American parents how to advocate in the juvenile justice

system

• Acquainting juvenile justice system agency representatives with Native

American cultures and communities

• Fostering positive relationships between juvenile justice system

representatives and the Native American community.

The program provides not only educational services, but also an arena for Native

Americans and juvenile justice system personnel to interact in a positive, collaborative

manner. 

The ADE project plan includes the completion of two interrelated tasks to

achieve its DMC goals. According to the plan, ADE project staff would develop a

culturally based family handbook. Then, the handbook would be utilized to train 50 to

75 students and parents in three workshop sessions. The handbook would:
Shortstop: A Juvenile Diversion Program. Irvine, CA: Orange County Bar Foundation (1992). 2

IV-18

• Explore Native American self-concepts and cultural perspectives

• Survey family communication and decision-making skills

• Provide victim awareness and alcohol and drug information

• Examine juvenile jurisprudence in relation to tribal, state, and Federal

systems.

The concepts contained in both the handbook and workshop would be based on the

You Decide handbook, developed by the Southern California Orange County Bar

Association’s Delinquency Prevention and Youth Diversion Program. The handbook 2

and the workshops would consist of three parts:

• Decision-Making. This component includes surveying family

communication, developing decision-making skills, and understanding the

Native American community and self-concepts.

• Legal Consequences. This component examines Native Americans' rights

and responsibilities, in tribal, Federal, and state systems. 

• Vision for Your Future . This component emphasizes Native American

cultural contributions and perspectives.

To reach its target audience in a cost-effective manner, ADE would utilize the

Johnson-O'Malley (JOM) program network that serves more than 6,000 Native

American students in several public school districts and tribal communities in five

Arizona counties. JOM programs provide education, support services, and counseling

components to both parents and students. The ADE would solicit site applications from

JOM programs in both Maricopa and Pima Counties. Selected sites would provide the

training workshops to students and parents. The workshops would be evaluated with

pre- and post-test instruments for knowledge and attitude.

Funding/Resources

Arizona allotted its entire Phase II discretionary grant from OJJDP to fund the

seven pilot projects. ADE received $10,323 from these funds for its pilot project. ADE
IV-19

provided an additional $4,713 to the pilot project. Thus, the total project resources

were $15,036.

Staffing and Facilities/Pilot Project Capacity

The Positive Contact Program was directed by one paid staff member; the ET

sub-grant funded 20 percent of that individual's salary. The project also had two inkind employees from ADE who received no salaries from the ET sub-grant funds.

Pilot Project Activities

Between April and June 1994, the project staff reviewed documents and

conducted personal interviews for the development of the handbook You Decide. An

example of the materials reviewed included:

• Overview of Maricopa County Juvenile Court Center booklet

• Juvenile Responsibility & Law by Reikes, Jenkins and Russell

• Juvenile Rights and Responsibilities, from Pima County Court.

The project staff also participated in two conferences in support of the project:

“Violence Prevention Conference” and “Safe Schools: Developing a Plan.” Both

conferences were sponsored by the Arizona Department of Education and the Arizona

Center for Law-Related Education. At the Safe Schools conference, the “Positive

Contact Program” staff provided support for the "Prevention Resiliency" component and

trained facilitators prior to the conference.

During the funding period, the Positive Contact Program received some

technical assistance on the development of the handbook from Community Research

Associates. In June 1994, a preliminary outline of the handbook had been developed. 

In February 1995, the handbook, You Decide, was in draft form and was being

reviewed by juvenile justice professionals and individuals with relevant experience. By

June 1995, the staff was beginning to train public school system staff to use the

handbook.

The project staff acknowledges that data are needed to provide evidence of the

project's effectiveness. Some data on the project are available, but are not consistent

enough for any rigorous analyses. The state-wide juvenile justice data system, JOLT,

will not be operational soon enough to evaluate this project. The project staff felt that
IV-20

even with the appropriate data systems it was difficult to evaluate factors, such as

attitudinal changes, related to a 1-year grant.
IV-21

Facilitating Factors/Obstacles

The main factor that facilitated the operation of the Positive Contact Program

was a willingness by Native American families, juvenile justice system officials, and

public school staff to participate in this process. This pilot project marked the first time

an effort was made to bring the tribal community and the state educational system

together on a single issue. Generally, all parties were willing to be involved with the

pilot project to help improve systems in the community. 

Another facilitating factor was that ADE had previously offered training for youth

decision-making. They relied upon that previous experience when developing this pilot

project. That content knowledge and the technical assistance provided through the ET

project were both factors in successfully operating this pilot project.

One factor that was an obstacle to the pilot project was the high rate of staff

turnover at the GDC. There were three State Juvenile Justice Specialists and two

office directors between 1993 and 1995. The perception of the pilot project staff was

that the high GDC staff turnover rate contributed to low levels of monitoring and

supporting the pilot project during the funding period.

Another obstacle to the project was ADE's difficulty in obtaining meaningful data

from either the tribal justice system or the state juvenile justice system. The lack of

data was not only on the types of youth involved in the system, but also on what laws

and regulations apply to juveniles. There were "off and on reservation" issues that

made the process more complicated.

The final obstacles mentioned by the interviewees were the procedures that had

to be followed to receive the ET sub-grant. Although the other six ET projects received

their funding in January 1994, the Positive Contact Program did not receive its funding

until April 1994. The funding delay was caused because an Interagency Service

Agreement had to be approved by the State Board of Education in order for ADE to

receive an ET sub-grant from the GDC. This agreement was not finalized until April

1994. These extra steps required the original project timelines to be revised.
IV-22

Future Plans

Overall, ADE is committed to completing this project and making full and

productive use of the handbook. In the future, the training component of the Positive

Contact Program will be tied into existing programs such as the JOM program,

parent/student groups, and "leadership camps." The handbook might be the first step

in a larger process that involves the whole community in the juvenile justice system. In

fact, the project staff hoped that the handbook will become the first volume in a series

of manuals for the community. The project has received some informal but positive

feedback from parents, teachers, and students who had been involved in the pilot

project.

Project and Evaluation Summary

A summary of the ADE project, including the objectives and activities and a

summary of the evaluation measures and findings, are presented in Exhibit IV-4. 

Essentially, the Caliber evaluation team substantiated that the handbook was

completed in draft form. ADE demonstrated a high level of commitment to complete the

project as planned.

3.2 EMPACT-SPC: A Different Path Program

EMPACT-SPC, a community-based behavioral health organization, developed A

Different Path Program. The pilot project targets services to youth who are at high risk

of becoming involved with the juvenile justice system because they have at least one

immediate family member with a criminal history.

Sponsoring Organization

EMPACT was founded as a suicide prevention center and has expanded to

provide several counseling and prevention programs in Maricopa County. The mission

of EMPACT is to aid youth, adults, families, businesses, and communities to

experience healthy lifestyles. EMPACT fulfills its mission by providing a spectrum of

comprehensive services, including:

• Individual, family, and group therapy

• Intensive crisis family counseling

• Chemical dependency interventions and treatment
IV-23

• Psychiatric services

• 24-hour crisis line, mobile team

• Professional training services

• Employee assistance programs.

Services are provided by certified marriage and family therapists, counselors, social

workers, and substance abuse counselors. EMPACT staff often work in tandem with 

EXHIBIT IV- 4

PROJECT NAME: American Indian Family Law Education: Positive Contact

NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION : Positive Contact is a law-related education program with the primary goal of

increasing the Native American community's understanding of the juvenile justice system. It serves as an

outreach mechanism for the juvenile justice system by creating an opportunity for the American Indian community

to positively interact with the justice system. A total of 50 to 75 students and their parents should receive training

in three workshop sessions (2 hrs/session). Program developers hope that the inclusion of juvenile justice system

personnel will foster collaboration between the system and the community. The anticipated result is the

prevention of delinquency among the targeted population of 10- to 15-year-old Native American middle school

students.

OBJECTIVES/ACTIVITIES: MEASURES/INDICATORS:

• Develop a culturally based, juvenile- • Completed juvenile handbook

parent/family handbook that will instill American

Indian students and their families with a basic • Number of training sessions

knowledge and understanding of the law and

clarify their roles and responsibilities in relation to • Number of training participants

tribal, state, and federal systems (students/parents)

- Conduct research and modify existing

materials for handbook development • Participants' and parents' increased knowledge and

- Emphasize American Indian rights, understanding of law (multiple systems), personal

contributions, and governance rights/responsibilities, and American Indian

- Pilot the handbook and revise contributions

• Use handbook to conduct training for American • Increased utilization of social service and justice

Indian communities system related resources by community members

- Pre/post test training participants

- Modify training as indicated • Increased capacity of school and justice system to

provide prevention education to youth
IV-24

EVALUATION ACTIONS:

• In Spring 1994, the ADE project staff identified an independent evaluator whose expertise they intended to use

to conduct process and outcome evaluations of the Positive Contact program. The Caliber evaluation team,

however, has no information as to the status of the independent evaluation activities.

• The Caliber evaluation team conducted on-site interviews and observations:

- The handbook was available in draft form

- There was clear evidence of ADE's commitment to complete the handbook and conduct the training.

• Follow-up data collection (May 1995) suggests that the draft handbook is completed and being reviewed by

juvenile justice system experts.

• IEU acknowledges that the project was off schedule; this resulted from staff turnovers and resource

limitations.
IV-25

schools, law enforcement organizations, religious groups, and civic organizations. 

EMPACT's central office is in Tempe, Arizona, with branch offices in Scottsdale, Mesa,

Fountain Hills, Carefree, and West Phoenix.

EMPACT staff members were aware of the issue of DMC from their personal

experiences with youth. The EMPACT staff reported perceiving that DMC is a problem

in all metropolitan cities; what varies, according to these staff, is who is identified as a

minority youth. When the ET sub-grant Request for Proposal (RFP) was released, the

EMPACT staff identified opportunities to target and modify EMPACT program services

to become a DMC intervention.

An EMPACT prevention specialist wrote the proposal for the ET sub-grant. 

Information from the principal of Mesa Vista Junior High School (MVJHS) was used to

identify the target population. The school had wanted support services from EMPACT

for a while; the opportunity to provide those services came through A Different Path. 

Pilot Project Goals and Objectives

EMPACT's DMC initiative, A Different Path Program, was designed to reduce the

over-representation of minority youth in the juvenile justice system by focusing on the

point of entry into the juvenile justice system. By offering prevention services,

education services, and skills training, the program ultimately intended to reduce the

number of delinquent acts committed by the high-risk, minority youth who participate in

the program. With fewer delinquent acts being committed by this group, fewer minority

youth would enter the juvenile justice system, and thus, over-representation of minority

youth in the system might be reduced.

A Different Path was also designed to impact the other decision points further

into the juvenile justice system. By educating youth and their parents about the juvenile

justice system, the program would better equip minority families to understand the

process, recognize individual and system biases, and exercise their rights and options.

A Different Path targets youth in the fifth through eighth grades at MVJHS. 

MVJHS is an alternative school that enrolls students who have been suspended from

traditional school settings. More than one half of the student body is Hispanic. A

disproportionate percentage of the student body has a parent who has been convicted

of a felony, suggesting that these youth are at high risk for becoming juvenile offenders

or future adult offenders. Thus, the youth at MVJHS "cried out for services."
IV-26

According to the project plan, a total of 40 MVJHS students would be selected to

participate in A Different Path Program. Participation was to be optional, but students

would not be selected unless their parents agreed to participate as well. Each of the

selected families would participate in the program for 6 months.

By design, students were to be referred to the program by a MVJHS team

leader. Within 48-hours of referral, an EMPACT prevention specialist would conduct

an initial assessment of the youth. Next, the prevention specialist would conduct a

family needs assessment involving the youth and the youth's parents. Needs

assessment findings would serve as the basis for developing case plans for the youth. 

Each case plan would be developed by the prevention specialist, with input from

parents. Case plans may include referrals for individualized counseling for special

needs, such as substance abuse, and linkages to other youth-oriented programs,

including mentoring programs. Linkages would also be made with volunteer

organizations, community-based behavioral health organizations, and community

colleges. All case plans would include: peer counseling groups, parent support groups,

and family counseling groups.

The formation of peer groups was planned so as to afford youth the opportunity

to develop communication skills, peer refusal skills, problem-solving skills, and other

pro-social skills. This curriculum would be communicated through role-playing, story

telling, and alternative activities, including group sports and art therapy.

Parent groups were designed to help the participants improve life skills in

general, particularly communication skills, parenting skills, and anger management. 

For example, parents would learn how to restore a proper balance of authority in the

home following a period of incarceration. These meetings would also provide parents

an opportunity to share feelings and concerns as well as provide feedback. In addition,

the parent groups would serve to establish a resource of contacts that could be utilized

by the participants long after the program ends.

In family groups, family members would have an additional opportunity to

develop their communication skills. Members would also discuss family expectations,

roles, and boundaries. In addition, family members would have an opportunity to

express feelings related to the incarceration of one of its own. Through these

processes, the family could identify its own strengths and use these strengths to

change negative patterns of behavior.
IV-27

With the aid of the prevention specialist, each of these group settings would also

be utilized to educate participants on a range of important topics. These topics, most

notably, would include cultural identity, discrimination, and the juvenile justice system.

Funding/Resources

Arizona allotted their Phase II discretionary grant from OJJDP to fund the seven

pilot projects. EMPACT received $17,500 from these funds for its pilot project and 

provided an additional $2,573 of its own funds to the pilot project. Thus, the total

project resources were $20,073. 

Staffing and Facilities

An EMPACT project director provided supervision for two project coordinators

who provided the pilot project services. The project coordinators (.25 FTE each) were

EMPACT prevention specialists. They provided direct intervention services, including

initial assessments, life skills training, alternative prevention activities, counseling,

record keeping, and establishing linkages with other agencies. 

Only one prevention specialist provided services in the first 3 months of the

project, and this person remained responsible for day-to-day project operations during

the entire funding period. After 3 months, a female counselor was hired to work with

the female students. She worked 3- to 6-hours per day, twice per week. Later, a

Hispanic counselor was hired to counsel the Hispanic students. He worked a total of 3

hours per week. During the course of the pilot project, EMPACT provided extra staff,

as needed, on an in-kind basis.

All project activities took place at MVJHS. There was no transportation available

to the pilot project; therefore, the counselors were unable to take the youth on camping

trips or other extracurricular activities.

Pilot Project Activities

EMPACT used the first few weeks of the funding period to refine their

intervention. As mentioned previously, the original project plan was to provide services

to youth whose parents were currently or previously incarcerated. During the

implementation of the project, however, the project staff could not extract that

information about parents from the confidential school records. Therefore, having an

incarcerated parent was eliminated from the eligibility requirements. 
IV-28

The pilot project proceeded with providing counseling to youth who were

referred by the school principal. The counselors conducted initial assessments within

48 hours of a referral. They spent approximately 4 hours per week providing: individual

counseling, group counseling, life skills, anger management, and grief counseling. 

Peer groups were organized as a mechanism to explore cultural differences and

similarities. 

The parent support group and the family counseling group were scheduled to

meet twice per week in the evenings. According to evaluation interviews, there was

never a good response to the parenting support groups or the family counseling: there

were never more than three parents in attendance. The counselors reported trying

several options to increase parent attendance, such as requiring that parents attend a

group before their suspended youth was allowed back into school. The counselors

found that many of these parents had similarly poor school experiences in their own

youth and did not feel that a counseling program would help their children.

When the counselors realized they were not going to succeed with the parenting

groups, they focused their resources on the youth. They added an alternative life skills

component, psycho-social dramas, and art and music therapy. Some counseling was

held during class periods, so the teachers were also able to learn some skills for

dealing with problem youth.

Sixty students received services during the funding period. The numbers

fluctuated monthly due to youth being suspended from school. Two parents also

received some counseling services through the pilot project.

EMPACT staff conducted an outcomes study of participants, administering preand post-test questions to youth on perceptions of self-concept and self-worth. The

project staff, however, was unable to find any conclusive patterns in the data. These

results could be attributed, in part, to the program being operational for only 4 months. 

Later, a second evaluation effort was conducted based primarily on reports of

youth behavior from juvenile probation officers and the MVJHS principal, together with

a review of school records. The main findings of the analysis were: 15 percent decline

in recidivism; 17 percent increase in school attendance; 12 percent decline in discipline

referrals (i.e., suspensions or class transfers); and 7 percent decline in self-reports of

gang activity. This analysis included data from all 60 clients served in the first year.
IV-29

Facilitating Factors/Obstacles

One factor that facilitated the operation of the project was that the counselors

were able to develop a rapport with youth. The counselors reported that the youth in

the program improved their school attendance and cooperation in group activities as

the program developed. The youth in the program were willing to discuss personal

issues and to express their feelings. 

Another factor that contributed to the successful operation of the project was that

the prevention specialist who wrote the proposal for the ET sub-grant had a personal

dedication to the pilot project. He was able to successfully adapt A Different Path when

the parent support and family counseling groups dissolved. He also employed several

volunteers from Mesa Community College to serve as extra counseling resources and

to provide role models for students at MVJHS.

One major obstacle to the success of the program was that, for the first 6-

months, the majority of youth referred for counseling were Caucasian. Initially, the

MVJHS principal referred youth with extreme problems to the project, without regard to

ethnicity. As a result of some technical assistance from Community Research

Associates and GDC, the MVJHS principal recognized that this project was to

specifically target minority youth. After this consultation, the percentage of minority

youth referred to the program increased. The population of youth served during the

funding period was 43 percent Hispanic, 17 percent Native American, 10 percent

African American, and 30 percent Caucasian. 

Another barrier to the initial success of the project, according to EMPACT staff,

was the fact that the teachers at MVJHS were reportedly uncomfortable with the

project's in-classroom activities. For example, the teachers were unaccustomed to

counselors being present in the classroom. Some of A Different Path's activities, such

as the psycho-social dramas, were held during class periods. The class time was used

to potentially benefit not only the youth in the program, but also the teachers and other

youth in the classroom. Many teachers had not experienced this type of coordination

among service providers and had difficulty adapting.

A final factor identified by EMPACT staff as contributing to project problems was

the "lack of a good match" between one of the counselors and the project. Once this

counselor was replaced, the project reportedly operated more smoothly.
IV-30

Future Plans

The ET sub-grant funds were scheduled to end in December 1994; however,

several components of A Different Path survive. Thunderbirds, a local civic group,

donated money to fund the Hispanic counselor at MVJHS through the end of the 1994-

95 school year. EMPACT has also requested funds from this organization for a female

counselor, but the request was still pending at the time of the evaluation.

MVJHS is scheduled to close at the end of the school year, but EMPACT is

pursuing funds to continue the pilot project at another school. The Regional Behavioral

Health Office has approached EMPACT about providing the family counseling

component that was initially proposed for the ET sub-grant. 

Once the project was implemented, it became apparent to the counselors that a

mentoring program would be a useful component. Thus, a proposal has been

submitted to the local United Way branch to establish a mentoring program to address

DMC.

Project and Evaluation Summary

A summary of the EMPACT project, including the objectives and activities, and a

summary of the evaluation measures and plans, is presented in Exhibit IV-5 on the next

page. As indicated, EMPACT conducted its own outcome evaluation. The Caliber

contributions focused on the implementation process. Once the project took corrective

action, in terms of its target population, staffing problems, and classroom interface, A

Different Path appears to have been implemented according to plan. Also, early

juvenile justice data suggest that the program is having a positive impact on recidivism,

school attendance, and discipline problems.

3.3 Mothers Against Gangs: Apoyo Program

 AJJAC requested that Mothers Against Gangs (MAG), Inc., submit a proposal to

develop a Phase II pilot project based on its reputation as a positive grass-roots

organization in the community. Thus, MAG developed the Apoyo Program. Apoyo,

Spanish for "support," is a program devoted to reducing the over-representation of

Hispanic youth in the juvenile justice system through the provision of materials and

training designed to support monolingual, Spanish-speaking families. 
IV-31

Sponsoring Organization

MAG is a non-profit, grass-roots organization that is committed to the nurturing

of human potential in individuals, organizations, and communities. The organization

was founded in 1993 in response to the gang-related death of the founder's son. MAG

has four main goals:

• Victims' Rights. MAG attends court hearings and testifies at the request of

families. They also lobby for more effective laws to protect victims and

their families.

• Youth Gang Prevention/Intervention . MAG provides education,

counseling, peer groups, and referral to community services.

• Youth Conversion. MAG provides counseling and anger management for

youth who have lost someone to violence.

• Community Outreach. MAG helps the community to empower itself in the

fight against gangs and violence.

The Apoyo Program blends in with many of the organization's other activities with

Hispanic youth and families. Since its inception, 100 to 150 monolingual, Spanishspeaking families have received services from MAG. The Apoyo Program will continue

to target MAG's primary clientele, Hispanic youth and families in East and South

Phoenix.

Pilot Project Goals and Objectives

Language is a major barrier for many families to effectively interface with the

juvenile justice system. Thus, the major goal of MAG's Apoyo Program is to make

monolingual, Spanish-speaking parents more effective advocates for their children in

the juvenile justice system. To empower these parents, MAG was to develop:

• A set of Spanish language guide materials to teach monolingual families

how the juvenile justice system is structured, what options are available at

key decision points, and how to effect a positive outcome

• A training model that will include a technical resource team, a technical 

assistance resource manual, and a training guide

• A cadre of volunteer parents within Hispanic communities who will serve

as advocates and trainers for monolingual, Spanish-speaking families.
IV-32

Once the manual was completed, MAG would disseminate the resource manual

to local, community-based organizations. MAG would then provide training to bilingual,

Spanish-speaking parent volunteers who, in turn, would train monolingual, Spanishspeaking parents of youth involved in the juvenile justice system as well as the youth

themselves. MAG anticipates that these trained, monolingual Spanish-speaking

parents would then train other parents who face the same barriers of language and

ignorance inside the juvenile justice system.
IV-33

EXHIBIT IV- 5

PROJECT NAME: EMPACT-SPC: A Different Path Program

NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION : A Different Path Program is designed to prevent the incarceration of participant youth. The

program targets youth in the 5th through 8th grades at Mesa Vista Junior High School, especially those who have currently or

formerly incarcerated parents. Many students were referred to the school by the juvenile court because of school behavior

problems and/or truancy; all are at high risk for justice system involvement. Most students are Hispanic. Referrals for individual

counseling will be available. The program will provide counseling services to students and their families, provide alternative

preventions programs, and work to link families with the appropriate support services available in the community.

OBJECTIVES/ACTIVITIES: MEASURES/INDICATORS:

• Educate participant youth about cultural identity issues • Number of participant youth (90% goal) without delinquent

and their personal and societal consequences: contacts within 6 months of program completion

- All youth discuss incarceration, inter-generational • Number of participant youth (90% goal) without justice system

effects, and reconciliation plans with parents contact within 12 months of program completion

- All youth discuss cultural barriers to accessing

system resources with prevention specialist • Number of participant youth (90% goal) with increased

- All youth have opportunity to participate in knowledge of the justice system

community activities and access community

services • Increased utilization of community services and recreational

• Conduct peer and/or family group counseling to

enhance life skills, problem solving, school • Number of youth participating in identified alternative

performance, communication with parents and peer prevention programs

group

• Conduct parent group meetings (twice monthly) and communication skills

link family to appropriate social services

• Direct youth to EMPACT's alternative prevention performance upon program completion

programs

• Number of participant youth (95% goal) with improved school

opportunities

• Number of participant youth (95% goal) learning effective

• Number of participant youth (95% goal) with improved school

performance 6 months after program completion

EVALUATION ACTIONS:

• Project staff administered pre- and post-tests of participant self-concepts.

• Evaluation measures desired by the project staff are indicated in the application, along with data sources for each measure.

• EMPACT would like to conduct a 5-year longitudinal outcome study on participating youth. 

• Caliber evaluators focused on implementation process, identifying operational supports and barriers; evaluation included

on-site interviews and observations as well as document reviews.
IV-34

Funding/Resources

Since MAG was not awarded its grant through the competitive process that

selected the other pilot projects, the funding for the Apoyo Program was from the

State's OJJDP Title II funds. MAG was awarded $15,000 from an original request of

$24,000. The reduced funding level contributed to MAG having to rely on volunteers,

instead of paid staff members, to do some project tasks. 

Staffing and Facilities

Staffing was a serious issue for the operation of the pilot project. While the

Apoyo Program was managed by the president and CEO of MAG, a full-time staff

member was to be hired to write and refine the project materials and to maintain all

project documents. Three different individuals were hired for the position and worked

on the Apoyo Program, but they all subsequently left MAG for better paying positions. 

One of these staff members remained a volunteer for MAG, however, and worked on

the Apoyo Program one night a week. The Apoyo Program also received staff support

from the County Attorney's Office and an Arizona State University professor to

complete one task.

All Apoyo Program activities occurred at MAG headquarters, except for the

community presentations. Local community organizations and schools provided the

facilities at no cost for the Apoyo Program community presentations.

Pilot Project Activities

The first staff person who worked on the Apoyo Program gave two presentations

on the program to youth and families at public schools. Approximately 100 adults and

youth attended these two presentations. Apoyo staff also met with the employees of

the Maricopa County Attorney's Victim/Witness Advocate Office, community organizers,

local law enforcement, and monolingual parents to discuss the Apoyo Program. 

The Apoyo Program staff also received some training from the Maricopa County

Attorney's Office. The training covered information about court procedures, victims'

rights, and advocacy methods. The Victim/Witness Advocate Office also provided

literature to be included in the manual. Based on their expertise and input, it was

planned that the Maricopa County Attorney's Office would approve the final version of

the text.
IV-35

MAG received technical assistance on grant writing and manual development

from GDC and Community Research Associates. Recommendations from this

technical assistance were: (1) for MAG to contact the Pima Prevention Partnership

because they were working on a videotape, partly in Spanish, about the juvenile justice

system and (2) for MAG to contact the Phoenix Bar Association or a local Hispanic

attorney so that pro-bono legal assistance might be secured.

In support of the Apoyo Program, focus groups were held on Spanish language

resources, such as a parent questionnaire, which needed to be developed for the

Apoyo Program. Staff members from the Maricopa County Attorney's Office and

Arizona State University assisted with the analysis of the focus group data and

incorporated those findings with input from staff at the juvenile detention center.

MAG held four meetings for volunteers interested in working on the Apoyo

Program. One volunteer who was recruited translated a MAG intake instrument. This

experience demonstrated, however, that it was difficult for bilingual volunteers to

translate legal terminology into family-friendly prose. 

At the time of the evaluation, the Spanish language manual and the training

materials had not been finalized, although the manual was in draft form. Sections of

the manual that had been developed included: community education, court advocacy,

support services, and background information on MAG.

Since the manual and training materials had not been finalized, there had been

no volunteer training at the time of the evaluation.

Facilitating Factors/Obstacles

The biggest obstacle to implementing this pilot project was the lack of resources.

Primarily due to the turnovers in MAG staff, this pilot project was not able to complete

its manual by the end of its funding period. Additional staff, however, were hired in

February 1995 to complete this project. With one staff member devoting one hundred

percent of his/her time to the Apoyo Program, MAG estimated that the manual would be

completed by August 1995. 

MAG staff members were dedicated to the Apoyo Program. They realized that it

would result in valuable information for the families of Hispanic youth involved in the
IV-36

juvenile justice system. Despite the difficulties experienced operating the Apoyo

Program, MAG staff were determined to complete this project.

Future Plans

Once the manual is completed, it will be reviewed by the Maricopa County

Attorney's Office and other local attorneys. Once the manual is finalized, volunteers

will be trained to use the manual. They also plan to widely disseminate the manual.

MAG would like to translate every piece of its literature into Spanish. They

would also like to see all the organizations that receive youth and family referrals from

MAG have English and Spanish versions of their project materials. 

Project and Evaluation Summary

A summary of the MAG project, including the objectives and activities, and a

summary of the evaluation measures, plans, and activities, is presented in Exhibit IV-6

on the next page. As shown, the Apoyo Program could not be formally evaluated due

to its lack of completion. The implementation process review, however, identified a

highly committed staff, a great deal of community-level activity in support of the project,

and the completion of a draft manual.

3.4 Our Town Family Center: Minority Workshop Project

To address the problem of minority youth over-representation in the juvenile

justice system, Our Town Family Center developed the Minority Workshop Project.

Sponsoring Organization

Our Town Family Center, founded in 1978, is a non-profit organization that

provides social services, including a 24-hour crisis hotline, a shelter for homeless

adolescent females, long-term counseling, family preservation programs, mediation

programs (divorce, peer, and community), transitional life-skills programs, schoolbased prevention programs, and parent education. Our Town also operates two

OJJDP-funded programs, one for missing and runaway youth and another providing

alternatives for curfew violations. Our Town's annual budget is approximately $1.5

million.
IV-37

EXHIBIT IV-6

PROJECT NAME: Mothers Against Gangs: Apoyo Program

NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION: The Mothers Against Gangs (MAG) organization is developing and

implementing a program to improve and facilitate communication between monolingual (Spanishspeaking) families and the juvenile justice system. The Apoyo program will develop a training program,

including written materials, to teach parents how to advocate for their justice system involved youth.

OBJECTIVES/ACTIVITIES: MEASURES/INDICATORS:

• To produce a guide, written in Spanish, for • Family guide (in Spanish) to interact with the

families to use when dealing with the juvenile juvenile justice system

justice system

• To produce a training guide for use by the MAG

Family Assistance Specialist to train a cadre of • Number of manual and other resource

volunteer trainers to work within their communities materials disseminated to local communityto train monolingual parents based organizations

• To disseminate manual and other materials to • Trained Family Support Specialist

local community organizations implementing the training model

• To train a Family Support Specialist in the use of • Number of families utilizing training and

the training model and materials resource materials

• Completed training guide

EVALUATION ACTIONS:

• The Caliber evaluation team focused on conducting an implementation process review.

• The evaluation team conducted on-site interviews and observations.

• At the time of the on-site evaluation visit, the resource manual had not been completed; follow-up

data collection confirmed the completion of a draft manual.

• The Caliber evaluation team provided evaluation technical assistance to project staff to revise data

collection forms to capture program outcomes.
IV-38

Pilot Project Goals and Objectives

The overarching goal of Our Town's Minority Workshop Project is to reduce the

number of minority youth who are referred to, and detained by, the Pima County

juvenile justice system. According to the plan, the program would achieve this goal by

conducting youth and parent support groups. Youth support groups would be peer led;

topics would include cultural pride as well as the juvenile justice system. Parent

support groups would address similar topics as well as parenting skills.

To conduct the support groups, Our Town would:

• Develop four separate community sites within areas where there are high

levels of juvenile court referrals

• Develop a network of community providers who will be made available to

program participants

• Enlist local role models and juvenile justice system personnel to help

conduct the support groups

• Recruit and train 15 to 20 minority community volunteers to conduct

support groups, secure local presenters, and evaluate and adapt their

own efforts.

To enhance the training, Our Town would also create a resource sheet, consisting of

information about the network of community service providers.

Funding/Resources

Arizona allotted its Phase II discretionary grant from OJJDP to fund the seven

pilot projects. The Minority Workshop Project received $9,000; Our Town provided a

$7,277 funding match for a total of $16,277.

Our Town received assistance from several community organizations in Tucson. 

The Young Explorers School made referrals to the parenting courses and provided an

instructional site. The Parks and Recreation Department and Parent Connections

allowed the pilot project to use their facilities for instructional sites. Pima Prevention
IV-39

Partnership (PPP) and the Urban League (UL) provided client referrals and steering

committee members.

Staffing and Facilities

Staffing included two parent education co-coordinators; these staff did not teach

the parenting classes, but handled all of the administrative duties. Three instructors,

one person from Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA), one person from Our

Town, and one member of the community, taught the parenting classes.

Approximately one fourth of the parent education coordinators’ effort and

resources were devoted to the Single Moms (SM) class, and three fourths of their effort

and resources were devoted to the Effective Black Parenting (EBP) class.

Pilot Project Activities

Once the grant was awarded, a steering committee was formed, comprising Our

Town staff, the Department of Economic Security (DES), CASA, PPP, and UL. The

steering committee recommended revising the original project proposal when Our Town

received only one-third of the funding that was requested. It was decided that the most

effective way to have an impact on the issue of DMC and also draw upon Our Town's

organizational knowledge of parent education was to conduct parenting groups based

on an established curriculum.

Therefore, the focus of the project shifted from recruiting volunteers and building

a network of community providers to providing tested parent education curriculums to

low-income and minority parents. CASA had previously approached Our Town about

facilitating the EBP curriculum but Our Town was not able to offer the course until they

received the ET sub-grant. SM had been offered by Our Town for one-and-a-half years

before the ET sub-grant was received and thus had an experienced instructor and

materials.

During the operation of the program, the parent education coordinators identified

the EBP curriculum, supported the instructors, took class enrollments, worked with the

DES referrals (i.e., notified caseworkers of client attendance), made books available,

advertised for the training, and arranged for client child care.

EBP was a 6-week course that provided 18-hours of instructional time; the

course was offered three times during the funding period. The target population for
IV-40

EBP was African American parents, or anyone raising an African American youth. EBP

served approximately 10 people per class. It served a total of 30 people during the

funding period. EBP served mostly African American parents, but also one Hispanic

and one Asian parent. One class was provided to train people to facilitate the EBP

course in the community; this course included 20-hours of instruction. Each person

trained in EBP then had to teach one, 6-week EBP course in the community.

SM was a 4-week class that provided 8 hours of total instruction time; the course

was offered four times during the funding period. The target population for SM was any

single mom, with no ethnicity requirements. About one half of the women enrolled in

SM were African American, the other half were Anglo; very few Hispanic women

attended. The ethnicity of the clients for SM was questioned by a supervisor, but it was

felt that being raised by a single mom was a risk factor for a youth, regardless of

ethnicity.

DES referred clients to both the EBP and SM courses. DES referred its clients

not because it was interested in over-representation in the juvenile justice system, but

because it was interested in over-representation of minority youth in the foster care

system. For some parents, the course was part of their plan to regain custody of their

children. DES supported their clients who attended the EBP class by providing child

care and books, but did not provide support for clients who attended the SM class.

Project staff felt that both curriculums were sorely needed in the community and

should have been available to more parents, at more sites, and with greater frequency. 

Our Town Staff believed that the EBP curriculum was a strong one and could have had

an impact on families in helping them seek new discipline techniques. Bringing

together African American parents and single moms in workshops that address their

needs affected not only the parenting of their children, but hopefully, the next

generation of parents.

One of the EBP cycles was undersubscribed. In response, a meeting was held

with the Tucson Urban League to generate greater community support for the program. 

A CASA coordinator, a DES program manager, a staff member from PPP, and staff

from the Tucson Urban League met to discuss strategies to get parents to the EBP

workshops. They discussed the possibility of pooling their resources and agreed to

form a steering committee to advertise the EBP course in the African American

community.
IV-41

Class evaluations were completed, but they were not formally analyzed. One

single mother stated that she met another single mother at a class, and now they

support each other and no longer feel so isolated.

Facilitating Factors/Obstacles

One factor that facilitated the operation of the classes was that EBP and SM

used established curriculums that worked well with the parents. The curriculum was

easy for the instructors to follow, and it was presented without significant modifications.

Another factor that made the project successful was that Our Town had

experience in parent education and was able to use its established relationships in the

community. These strong relationships were useful in finding training sites and

advertising the classes.

One obstacle to the operation of the program was that there were no sanctions

for people who did not attend the classes. The project staff made follow-up telephone

calls to parents who missed classes, reminding them of the class times and dates and,

where appropriate, DES caseworkers were notified of "no-shows." Even DES was

unable to sanction parents who were required to complete the class as a requirement

for returning children from foster care. The project organizers stated that many of the

parents in these classes have stresses and instability in their lives and are not able to

"hear" what is taught in a parenting class.

Another obstacle was the race/ethnicity of EBP class organizers. The two Anglo

women lacked credibility within the minority communities.

A final obstacle identified by the evaluation was the time factor. It often takes a

few years to get a community education class going; the first year of a class is often

just community building. Grass-roots efforts take time. Our Town decided to do as

much as they could on the issue in light of the limitations. They felt that to keep youth

out of the juvenile justice system, parent education needs to be part of the solution.

Future Plans

According to project staff, the community must decide its level of commitment in

future parent education classes. All of the attendees of the EBP "train the trainers" are

scheduled to conduct at least one EBP class. After those classes, the project staff do
IV-42

not know how often EBP will be offered. The future of the SM class is more certain

since this class has been and will continue to be part of Our Town services.

Project and Evaluation Summary

A summary of the Our Town project, including objectives and planned activities,

and a summary of the evaluation measures and actions, is presented in Exhibit IV-7 on

the next page. The Caliber evaluation team again focused on the implementation of

the project. 

Although the Our Town project was funded at one third of its original request and

therefore had to be considerably scaled back, staff and participants reported that much

had been achieved. For example, at the completion of the EBP sessions, eight

participants signed up to attend a 6 hour "Train the Trainer" Workshop. At the

completion of that training, seven participants signed contracts, each to facilitate a 6

week session of Effective Black Parenting in Pima County.

3.5 Pima Prevention Partnership: Equal Treatment Project

The Pima Prevention Partnership (PPP) implemented the Equal Treatment

Project, a series of strategies to reduce the over-representation of minority youth in the

juvenile justice system within Tucson, Arizona.

Sponsoring Organization

The Pima Prevention Partnership was established in 1989 and incorporated in

1991. A primary function is the operation of a 5-year demonstration grant from the

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) to address factors causing alcohol and

other drug abuse in the community. The organizational philosophy is that "we do with

the community, not for the community."

The PPP supported the Phase I research activities in Pima County; its staff members

served as planners, focus group facilitators, and community forum facilitators. They

were disappointed, however, with the Phase I report because they believed that it did

not reflect a system-level approach.

Pilot Project Goals and Objectives
IV-43

A group of "project partners" from the Tucson Police Department, Pima County

Juvenile Court, Pima County Sheriffs Department, Pima County Attorney's Office, and

Pima County Pretrial Services formed a committee with PPP and agreed on an

approach for the pilot project. PPP staff believed that the most important reason for 

EXHIBIT IV-7

PROJECT NAME: Our Town Family Center: Minority Workshop Project

NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION: The OUR TOWN Family Center of Tucson developed the Minority

Workshop Project to reduce the number of minority youth referred and detained by the Pima County

Juvenile Court. The project was to provide community-wide, culturally relevant parenting and youth

culture groups to assist families in developing parenting and youth cultural support skills. To support this

plan, Our Town requested $27,277. When they were only granted $9,000, Our Town and AJJAC agreed

that the agency would focus on Effective Black Parenting and Parenting for Single Moms workshops.

OBJECTIVES/ACTIVITIES: MEASURES/INDICATORS:

• Recruit, train staff and volunteers • Number of staff, volunteers, recruited, trained

• Identify Effective Black Parenting (EBP) • Evidence of EBP curriculum

curriculum

• Provide 18 hours EBP, three times per year cycles

• Provide 8 hours Single Moms (SM), four times per • Number of SM class hours; number of cycles

year

• Receive DES referrals

• Track participants

• Interface with community

• Number of EBP class hours; number of

• Number of DES referrals

• Number of participants

• Hour/type of community interface

EVALUATION ACTIONS:

• Originally the Caliber evaluation team was to provide technical assistance to Our Town to develop and

collect data.

• With the revised Our Town plan, Caliber focused on the materials listed below:

- Staff (three existing) and parent volunteers (two) recruited and trained

- EBP curriculum established

- 36 hours of EBP class provided

- 26 hours of SM class provided

- Participants tracked, including DES referrals

- Community meetings held to resolve EBP issues, future plans.
IV-44

doing the project was to give PPP some leverage with relevant, local institutions—by

working on this minor, short-term project, they could begin to build long-term

relationships with and between the agencies and communities that are involved or

should be involved with addressing juvenile delinquency.

PPP's Equal Treatment Project seeks to reduce overrepresentation of minority

youth in the juvenile justice system by: (1) improving the ability of minority parents to

advocate for their children within the juvenile justice system; (2) increasing the

sensitivity and knowledge of juvenile justice workers regarding multicultural issues; and

(3) promoting equitable and effective relationships between juvenile justice system

agencies and all community groups. The project was designed to serve local juvenile

justice system workers as well as all minority groups in Tucson.

PPP’s plan included a coordinated, two-track program involving diversity training and

parent and community education. The two-track program included three components. 

Planned activities and project partners are described below for each of the three

components.

Establish a community outreach work group. PPP would help establish a

Community Outreach Work Group at Pima Juvenile Court Center (PJCC). PPP would

train the work group in applying planning and evaluation tools to identify the role of the

Juvenile Court in maintaining a disproportionate representation of minority youth in the

juvenile justice system. PPP would assist the work group to develop a 10-minute

informational videotape on the juvenile justice system. The videotapes would present

information on court procedures, legal options, and available community services. The

videotape would be played continuously in the lobby of the court center as well as at

other appropriate public locations.

Develop cultural sensitivity training. PPP and representatives from all project

partners would form a curriculum committee to "personalize and localize" a 3-day

Multicultural Leadership Curriculum developed by CSAP. This curriculum concerns

cultural differences, similarities, and perceptions; strategies for responding to cultural

insensitivity; and communication, decision-making, and conflict resolution skills

development. PPP would also sponsor one, 2-day training-for-trainers from each

project partner organization. Finally, PPP would provide ongoing technical support as

each of the partner agencies implements diversity training within its own organization. 

This technical support would consist of assistance with training delivery and evaluation

of participant skill acquisition.
IV-45
IV-46

Host five community forums. PPP would coordinate five community forums in

neighborhoods with high concentrations of minority youth who are involved in the

juvenile justice system. The Equal Treatment Project partners would coordinate with

Youth A.I.D., a grass-roots neighborhood organization, to educate parents and other

participants on the juvenile justice system, to promote communication, conflict

resolution, and other skills development, and to impart information on new initiatives to

reform the juvenile justice.

Funding/Resources

Arizona allotted its Phase II discretionary grant from OJJDP to fund the seven

pilot projects. The Equal Treatment Program received $22,500. PPP also utilized

some drug prevention resources for this project, since drug abuse is often a major

cause of minority youth being involved with the juvenile justice system. The total

project cost was $50,000; approximately one half of the funds were provided by PPP

and the other project partners.

Staffing/Facilities/Pilot Project Capacity

The project director (.15 FTE) and the project administrator (.25 FTE) were parttime and also provided in-kind service to the pilot project; their time was charged to the

ET sub-grant.

PPP used a team approach to staffing the pilot project and used its staff when

and where it was necessary. PPP would sometimes convene staff meetings to discuss

issues involving the pilot project. Community organizations and the project partners

supplied the facilities for the community forums and the law enforcement training.

Pilot Project Activities

PPP provided technical support and assistance to the Equitable Treatment

Project in: strategic planning, community development, broad-based programming and

multi-disciplinary teamwork, program operations support, and program monitoring and

evaluation. The following paragraphs describe project activities in the main areas

outlined in the project plan.

Establish a community outreach working group. This group was named the

"Intercultural Relations Workshop." It was primarily composed of Hispanic and African
IV-47

American staff members from the Pima County Juvenile Court. PPP provided training

and technical assistance to the working group to conduct community outreach about

the juvenile justice system in minority areas. The outreach was still in the planning

stages by the end of the sub-grant period.

Pima County Juvenile Court agreed to utilize the services of the intercultural

relations workshop to assist with future planning and the selection of a coordinator of

the new Juvenile Court Citizen Advisory Group. This group will serve as a "board of

directors" for juvenile court. Their role will be to develop policies and procedures that

are more sensitive to, and more inclusive of, the needs of minority families.

Develop/produce a 10-minute informational videotape. Instead of the

planned 10-minute videotape, a 12-minute videotape was produced that provides 6

minutes of information in English and 6 minutes of information in Spanish. The

videotape covers court procedures, legal options, and available community services. 

The videotape was developed in consultation with the Pima County Juvenile Court and

the Pima County Attorney's Office. Before the final version was produced, the

videotape was critiqued by a class of middle school students; their suggestions were

incorporated into the final product.

The videotape became available in July 1994. It was looped for continuous

showing in the waiting room of the Pima County Juvenile Court. Copies of the

videotape were also presented to: (1) the Chicago Advocate Youth Organizations; (2)

Luz Family Services; (3) Pima County Juvenile Court Center (PJCC) Training Officer;

(4) PJCC Public Information Officer; (5) PJCC Librarian; (6) Coronado Behavioral

Health; (7) Godfather's Mentoring Program; (8) Pima Youth Partnership; and (9) PJCC

Delinquency Prevention Coordinator. There are others still slated to receive the

videotape, including the Tucson Urban League, Nosotros, Diocese of Tucson, and the

Alliance of African American Ministers. The videotape, however, was still not being

shown in the juvenile court by the end of the grant period, due to space limitations.

Host five community forums. These forums were intended to continue the

dialogue from the state-sponsored Phase I community forums. PPP staff had to

facilitate the forums because the Youth A.I.D. group, the original facilitator, disbanded. 

The five forums allowed the project partners and community members to further discuss

the relevant issues that contribute to DMC and work toward possible solutions utilizing

community input.
IV-48

Four of the five forums were held in April 1994, and the final one was held in

September 1994. To advertise the community forums, PPP distributed 7,000 handbills,

obtained media coverage from KOVA-TV and the Tucson Citizen, and prepared press

releases. Forums were held in conjunction with other minority-oriented events. All of

the project partners participated in the community forums.

Each forum was conducted for at least 2 hours with time made available for

community participants to ask questions and make comments. At the forums, each

project partner presented highlights regarding their initiatives to decrease the overrepresentation of minority youth in the juvenile justice system:

• Juvenile Court discussed the availability of the bilingual videotape

for youth and their parents about Juvenile Court procedures. The

court also discussed having the citizens' advisory committee serve as

"board of directors" for the Juvenile Court.

• The Pima County Attorney's Office presented plans for

restructuring the juvenile court system so that neighborhoods would

be more in control of youth who enter the juvenile justice system.

• The Tucson Police Department and the Pima County Sheriffs's

Department spoke about their ongoing commitment to incorporate

cultural sensitivity for both their officers and non-commissioned

personnel, since they serve as the gateway into the juvenile justice

system.

• Pre-trial Services agreed to upgrade their staff training in cultural

sensitivity by participating in PPP-sponsored trainings.

The forums gave the public and the Equal Treatment project a "renewed sense of

direction" and some new ideas. Forum attendance, however, was low. It ranged from

15 to 50 people with an average of 25.

Create cultural sensitivity curriculum and training. PPP worked with the

Tucson Police Department, the Pima County Sheriff's Department, and the Juvenile

Court staff to develop an appropriate cultural sensitivity training curriculum. Each of

these entities worked independently with PPP to develop training that could be

implemented by the organization's trainers. PPP will continue to provide ongoing

support and technical assistance in this area.
IV-49

The Tucson Police Department's Training Division identified a curriculum

committee for the Equal Treatment Project. The curriculum committee developed a 4-

hour training based on a CSAP multicultural leadership training curriculum. A total of

1,000 sworn and non-sworn members of the Tucson Police Department received

training during the grant period. PPP developed a "training for trainers" curriculum to

assist Tucson Police Department trainers in the future.

PPP also conducted a four-hour cultural diversity "training of trainers" with the

Pima County Sheriffs Department. After this session, several members of the Sheriffs

Department worked with PPP to determine how to apply this training to the particular

training needs of their staff.

In February 1995, Juvenile Court staff participated in a two and a half day

training with the African American community that identified issues and concerns and

planned projects related to the disproportionate representation of minority youth in the

juvenile justice system. PPP sponsored the Institute of African American Mobilization

training that provided a curriculum for organizations to train their staff in cultural

sensitivity issues.

Facilitating Factors/Obstacles

One factor which facilitated implementation of the project was the commitment by

PPP, the project partners, and the community. PPP staff reported high levels of

commitment to the project. ("We were rabid.") Since PPP looked at this as the first step

in a long-term process, the organization was committed to the project’s success. The

project partners were also very committed and active participants in the community

forums and curriculum development. Also, the community had some preparation for

dealing with DMC due to their participation in the State-sponsored Phase I community

forums.

One obstacle to this project, reported by PPP staff, was the low level of

commitment and leadership by Arizona State government. The project staff perceived

that State leadership lacked a systematic approach to problem solving. The Phase I

report was perceived as not strategically addressing the issue. PPP staff believed that

the Phase II pilot projects, with small target populations, would not affect any of the

systemic issues that contribute to DMC. Also, PPP staff felt that the pilot projects were

isolated because the state DMC staff made no attempt to convene grantee meetings or

forums.
IV-50

The perceived lack of a systematic approach to solving DMC carried through to

the local juvenile justice and social service delivery community. The project staff

described the system of youth agencies in Tucson as being unwilling to "make peace"

across agencies for the benefit of youth. The reported infighting and power struggles

were perceived as contributing to systematic barriers which increase DMC.

A final obstacle to this project, reported by PPP staff, was that there was no

"room" in any of the juvenile justice organizations for DMC. The majority of government

and youth service staff are overworked and DMC became yet another duty as well as a

low priority.

Future Plans

The pilot project began the building of relationships among local juvenile justice

institutions and one result was the development of Teen Court. Teen Court, which has

been successfully implemented in other jurisdictions, was developed as an option for

first-time offenders. Instead of a youth's case proceeding through the juvenile justice

system, a youth can be diverted to Teen Court. There, the case is tried by teen

"attorneys" and a teen "jury" before a Juvenile Court judge. The jury decisions include

performing a range of community service activities or serving on another youth's Teen

Court case. Teen Court expects to try 300 cases in nine months in 1995, 900 cases in

1996, and 2,700 cases in 1997. The Pima County Attorney's Office contributed

$15,000; the Tucson Police Department contributed $7,000; the Sheriffs Department

contributed $5,000; and the Juvenile Court has donated $40,000 over two years to fund

Teen Court. Teen court defendants, however, are not selected with consideration of

race.

Project and Evaluation Summary

A summary of the Equal Treatment Project, including objectives and activities,

and a summary of the evaluation measures and findings, are presented in Exhibit IV-8

on the next page. The evaluation found that the Equal Treatment Project's planned

activities were satisfactorily implemented and completed. Further, this project

attempted to develop and implement interventions to affect systemic causes of DMC. 

Despite ongoing tensions and local politics, which appear to aggravate systemic

barriers, among juvenile justice and other youth-serving agencies, it appears that this

project may have a lasting impact on DMC and youth services through the cultural

sensitivity training and Teen Court.
IV-51

3.6 Pinal Hispanic Council: Project Esperanza

To address the Phase I research findings, the Pinal Hispanic Council developed

Project Esperanza (Project Hope), a juvenile delinquency diversion program. This 
IV-52

EXHIBIT IV-8

PROJECT NAME: Pima Prevention Partnership: Equal Treatment Project

NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION: The Pima Prevention Partnership (PPP) was awarded a grant to

cooperate with the Pima County Attorney's Office, Juvenile Court, Sheriff's Department, Tucson Police

Department, and Superior Court Pretrial Services to conduct the Equal Treatment Project. The Equal

Treatment Project focuses on parent and community education and diversity training. The overall goal is

to reduce the overrepresentation of minority youth in Tucson's juvenile justice system through training

parents to effectively advocate for their children and increasing the cultural sensitivity of juvenile justice

system personnel. This project targets the front-end decision points in the system, law enforcement

contact, and intake.

OBJECTIVES/ACTIVITIES: MEASURES/INDICATORS:

• Establish a 5-member Community Outreach Work • Completed informational video

Group which will produce a 10 minute information

video about court procedures, legal options, and • Continuous screening of the video in

available community services appropriately targeted public centers

• Develop a cultural sensitivity curriculum to train • Completed cultural sensitivity curriculum

juvenile justice system personnel

- Use 3-day Multicultural Leadership Curriculum cultural sensitivity curriculum

created by the US Center for Substance Abuse

- Conduct 2-day training session for trainers • Number of trained community forum

- Provide ongoing TA to agencies which adopt the facilitators

sensitivity training

• Continue community dialogue by conducting 5

additional community forums • Increased cultural sensitivity among juvenile

- Train 5 community volunteers (from Youth

A.I.D.) to facilitate forums • Reduction in arrest rate of minority youth

- Provide information about the juvenile justice • Increased diversion of minority youth into

system operations and reform initiatives, and social service programs

promote communication and conflict resolution

skills

• Completed training for trainers to deliver

• Number of community forums conducted

justice system personnel

EVALUATION ACTIONS:

• Originally, PPP planned to provide an independent evaluator, a function of a pre-existing grant.

• The Caliber evaluation team focused on the project's implementation process and the extent to which

project objectives were realized.

• The evaluation measures were used to assess the project's achievement of objectives.

• The evaluation found that all planned project activities were satisfactorily completed and it appears

that the project may have a lasting effect through cultural sensitivity training and implementation of

Teen Court.
IV-53

project provides services to youth in Eloy, Arizona (population 7,000), a town in which

80 percent of the citizens are minorities, primarily Hispanics. 

Sponsoring Organization

The Pinal Hispanic Council is a grass-roots agency that provides advocacy,

substance abuse services, education, and family preservation services. It has 23 staff

members who work mostly in youth programming. The organization offers behavioral

health services to a rural, tri-community area in Pinal County.

Pilot Project Goals and Objectives

The major goal of Project Esperanza is to reduce the number of Eloy's minority

youth referred to juvenile court or placed in a detention center. The program is

intended to achieve this goal by impacting both the pre-arrest and arrest decision

points in the juvenile justice system. Law enforcement officials refer arrested juveniles

who qualify for the program. To qualify, youth must be between the ages of 10-16 and

reside in Eloy. In addition, youth must have no prior arrests for serious offenses and

be arrested for the first time for one of the following offenses:

• Truancy, runaway, or curfew violation

• DUI, marijuana possession, inhalant use, consumption of alcohol

• Trespassing, loitering, or disorderly conduct

• Larceny

• Simple assault

• Vandalism.

The offenses must be non-drug and non-gang offenses because the County Attorney

wants to deal with drug and gang violations in his office.

Project Esperanza aims to divert at-risk and pre-arrest youth away from the

juvenile justice system. Juvenile justice involvement for children of color appears to

become a "fast track" for further justice system involvement. The Council planned a

true diversionary program to steer minority youth away from the juvenile justice system. 

This program was intended to give police an alternative to arrest/probation when

dealing with juveniles. 
IV-54

The program design consists of three stages. In the first stage, the pre-arrest

stage, the Eloy High School would refer students manifesting pre-juvenile delinquency 

symptoms for screening and evaluation and provide early intervention services. During

the second stage, the Eloy Police Department would contact the Pinal Hispanic Council

and refer arrested youth to project services instead of making referrals to the juvenile

probation department or detention center. The last stage of the project would involve

follow-up and aftercare services.

The program duration is 90-days. The major program components are:

• Counseling sessions (family counseling and one-on-one counseling)

• Prevention activities, including field trips, sports, and workshops.

Other services include 24-hour emergency/crisis intervention and case management,

including court advocacy, school advocacy, mediation, transportation, and job search

assistance.

In addition, the program's clinical supervisor would conduct weekly support

groups at the detention center with youth who did not qualify for the program. The

support groups would emphasize life skills, including substance abuse education.

By providing early intervention services to such troubled youth and their families,

Project Esperanza seeks to reduce the number of local minority youth who ultimately

commit delinquent acts. Project Esperanza seeks to reduce the number of local

minority youth who are referred to juvenile court or placed in a detention center in two

ways: physically, by creating a new diversionary alternative; and therapeutically, by

providing services to prevent youth participants from committing future delinquent acts.

Funding/Resources

Arizona allotted their Phase II discretionary grant from OJJDP to fund the seven

pilot projects. Project Esperanza received $16,351 and the Pinal Hispanic Council

contributed an additional $15,853 for a total project budget of $32,204.

Staffing/Facilities/Pilot Project Capacity

An executive/project director, a deputy director/project administrator, a clinical

supervisor, and the juvenile justice diversionary coordinator comprised the staff of this
IV-55

pilot project. One new staff person was hired and served the project part-time; the

other staff were part of the overall Pinal Hispanic Council and also served the project

on a part-time basis.

The counseling was done on site at the Pinal Hispanic Council and field trips

were held off site. The field trips are to provide youth with fun activities and also to

provide an opportunity for youth to establish relationships with the counselors in a

social setting.

Pilot Project Activities

The pilot project started in January 1994 by developing the necessary internal

and external structures. Other planning steps included developing the eligibility

criteria, program forms, and agency agreements. Meetings were held with the Eloy

Police Department, judges, and school officials about the purpose of this project. The

program became operational in March 1994 with 10 referrals from the Eloy Police

Department. The services provided included: counseling, case management,

emergency/crisis intervention and prevention, alternative activities, and case

management services such as school advocacy and mediation. 

The Pinal Hispanic Council entered into formal agreements with the Pinal

County Sheriff's Office and the City of Eloy Police Department to provide behavioral

health services to first-time juvenile offenders suspected of committing a misdemeanor

or status offense. The Pinal Hispanic Council also entered into formal agreements with

both the Eloy Elementary School District and the Santa Cruz Valley Union High School

to provide behavioral health services to juveniles who manifest pre-juvenile

delinquency symptoms.

A youth proceeds through four main stages in the program: (1) a youth is

stopped by the police or referred by the school; (2) the parent and youth agree to a

referral; (3) a youth enrolls in the program the next day; and (4) if the program is not

completed, then the youth is remanded to Probation. The program duration is 90-days.

A total of 48 youths were served by the project during the funding period. Of

these youth, three-fourths were Hispanic (75%), over one-tenth (12%) were African

American, and a small percentage (3%) were Native American. The remaining (10%)

youth were Caucasian. Most youth (63%) were male.
IV-56

The primary source of referrals was the school. Thirty-three youth or 69 percent

of the total were referred by the schools. The remainder, 15 youth or 31 percent, were

referred by the Eloy Police Department. Almost one half (48%) of the youth were

involved in juvenile offenses prior to referral. The remainder (52%) were at risk of

being involved.

Almost all of the youth successfully completed the program: 45 youth or 94

percent were successful completers. Two participants were re-arrested and the

remaining youth moved away from the area.

Project Esperanza was invited to the 6th Annual National Native American

Conference on Inhalant Abuse. The conference presentation described Project

Esperanza and described how its model could be implemented to provide services to

youth.

Facilitating Factors/Obstacles

One factor that contributed to the successful operation of the project was that the

pilot project staff was committed to the project. They believed in the DMC mandate and

wanted to take advantage of the opportunity to contribute to reducing the problem. 

They also felt there was commitment in the GDC regarding issues of minority youth,

and stated that GDC staff were helpful and supportive.

Another factor that facilitated the operation of the pilot project was that the Eloy

Police Department was very supportive of the program. Moreover, the police did not

feel that they were under attack from those concerned about DMC issues. 

One problem encountered by the program was a lack eligible referrals. As this

problem emerged, the project staff met with the Chief of Police to ensure that the police

officers were keeping Project Esperanza in mind when dealing with first-time juvenile

offenders that had committed a misdemeanor. Also many youth who were referred to

the project were not first-time offenders. Ten percent of the referrals were from

schools. Such referrals were for youth involved in school fights or who had other

behavior problems. 

Future Plans

The project is able to continue due to additional grant money from various

resources, although project services have been reduced. DMC, in general, is viewed
IV-57

by the Pinal Hispanic Council as a political issue and the future of projects like Project

Esperanza is dependent on political attitudes at the state and federal levels.
IV-58

Project and Evaluation Summary

A summary of Project Esperanza, including the objectives and activities, and a

summary of the evaluation measures and actions, is presented in Exhibit IV-9 on the

next page. The Caliber evaluation team substantiated that the project was

implemented as planned. The evaluators also learned that, despite initial problems

with the number of referrals, the project ultimately received 48 referrals, four less than

the original plan. The problems with the number and type of referrals were addressed

through inter-agency cooperation and community problem-solving. 

3.7 Westside Social Services: Juvenile Diversion Program

The Juvenile Diversion Program was in existence prior to the ET sub-grant. It

was established by Westside Social Services, Inc., in response to problems of drug

abuse and violence as well as the need for behavioral health services for at-risk youth. 

The project provided counseling and community resources to first time offenders and

other at-risk youth, ages 12-18, who reside in Avondale, Goodyear, and surrounding

areas of southwest Maricopa County. The program was originally funded from March

to August 1993. The program was funded through the end of 1993 by the Salt River

Project and a newly instituted program fee. 

Sponsoring Organization

Westside's programs serve the communities located in Southwest Maricopa

County. Westside employs 30 professional staff with treatment expertise in behavioral

health counseling, family counseling, and in-home parenting skills training. Westside

Social Service's total budget is $1 million to $1.5 million annually.

Pilot Project Goals and Objectives

The Juvenile Diversion Program is an 8-week counseling program that meets

two evenings a week, for a total of 24 hours of counseling time. Counseling sessions

rely heavily upon group discussion, group exercises, and role-playing. To complete the

program, participants must also attend two community events. These events vary for

each class, but have included Boys and Girls Club outings, parades, and meetings held

by the Avondale Alliance Against Drugs.
IV-59

The program's major goal is to reduce the number of youth referred to the

juvenile justice system. Related goals are to improve the self-esteem levels of 
IV-60

EXHIBIT IV-9

PROJECT NAME: Pinal Hispanic Council: Project Esperanza Program

NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION : The Pinal Hispanic Council implemented a prevention and early

intervention, community-based diversionary program for youth in Eloy, AZ. Project Esperanza is

intended to reduce the number of Eloy's youth who are referred to juvenile count. The program was

designed for up to 52 youth who are at-risk for committing delinquent behavior or are in the first stage of

juvenile processing. Participants who are committed to the county detention center will continue to

receive support services. A Diversion Coordinator was on-call 24 hours/day to intervene for arrested

youth. This coordinator worked directly with the youth and their family to provide advocacy and social

service referrals.

OBJECTIVES/ACTIVITIES: MEASURES/INDICATORS:

• To cooperate with personnel in the local • Number of program referrals

police department, high school, county

detention center, City and County and • Number of Court intakes

Court to identify who participates

• To provide services to youth and their

families : • Level and type of services delivered

- Counseling

- Case Management • Number of participants with diminished

- Emergency/crisis intervention drug use up to 12 months following

- Alternative youth activities program completion

- Weekly support groups for participant

youths in detention • Rate of recidivism among detained youth

- Follow-up and after-care services up to 12 months following release

• Number of screenings/evaluations

(including follow-up and after-care)

EVALUATION ACTIONS:

• The Caliber evaluation focused on documenting project plans and project activities.

• On-site interviews and document reviews were conducted.

• The evaluators found that the project was implemented as planned.

• Insights were gained on community interactions for problem-solving.
IV-61

participant youth, and to develop participants' skills—such as anger management—to

help them avoid involvement with drugs, gangs, and the juvenile justice system. 

Data indicated that, prior to the ET grant, the Juvenile Diversion Program was an

effective intervention. Thus, the goal of the pilot project was to continue the current

counseling component and also to enhance it with the development of a Youth

Speaker's Bureau. The Speaker's Bureau would allow youth to express themselves in

a healthy manner and also allow community members to understand their point of view. 

In combination, the counseling and the Speaker's Bureau would be a tool for

empowering youth to empower the community.

The project plan was for each participating youth to receive six hours of training

in public speaking. The first cohort of participant youth would develop a name and logo

for the Youth Speaker's Bureau, and disseminate flyers to advertise their availability as

speakers. Westside anticipated that speaking presentations would occur monthly at

school events, at meetings of neighborhood groups, and at city council meetings. 

Funding/Resources

Arizona allotted their Phase II discretionary grant from OJJDP to fund the seven

pilot projects. The Juvenile Diversion Program received $9,000. The Salt River Project

also contributed $2,500 during 1995. 

The pilot project used Westside's conference room for group sessions twice a

week. The City of Avondale Social Services Department also provided meeting

facilities to the pilot project on an in-kind basis. The pilot project conducted some of

their activities through home-based intakes and follow-up.

Staffing and Facilities

The pilot project had two staff members, the program director, and a volunteer

who served as a secretary/receptionist for four months. In addition, a volunteer student

from the University of Phoenix Counseling Program was used to co-facilitate a

counseling group. A youth from the community was also hired as a group leader.

Pilot Project Activities
IV-62

Most referrals to the pilot project were made by the Juvenile Court and the

schools. Juveniles arrested for a first offense misdemeanor were automatically referred

to the Juvenile Diversion Program per an intergovernmental agreement between the

City of Avondale and the Juvenile Court Center. The principal of Agura Fria High

School sent a written notice to parents of students with behavioral problems when their

youth were being referred to the Juvenile Diversion Program. A weekly notice also

appeared in the local newspaper for parents to contact the agency for more information

on the Juvenile Diversion Program.

The Youth Speaker's Bureau was developed and two formal presentations were given

during the funding period.

An intake form was completed for each youth in the program. This information

was compiled into a database which included: reason for referral, race, gender, age,

school district, residence, and other information. A volunteer intern from Phoenix

College (Education Department) conducted an evaluation of the project data that

included a survey of past participants.

The follow-up data supports the conclusion that the pilot project positively

affected its target population. Seventy-five percent of youth have not been arrested or

suspended from school since being in the Juvenile Diversion Program. Seventy-five

percent of youth reported they have not been involved in violence in the three months

following their participation. Seventy-five percent of youth also reported they have not

used drugs or alcohol since being in the program.

Facilitating Factors/Obstacles

One factor that helped this project to gain acceptance, according to project staff,

was that the community members were willing to take responsibility for their delinquent

youth. Community members knew that this project would help to address the lack of

interesting programs for youth in the community and the increased signs of graffiti and

juvenile crime.

An obstacle to the operation of the pilot project was the time it took to get a

formal agreement in place with the juvenile court system. The Juvenile Diversion

Program could not require youth to remain in the program without the court paperwork

in place. 
IV-63

Another obstacle was that Westside did not get the ET sub-grant funding at the

level they originally requested. This reduced funding caused them to modify their

project plans. For example, the mentoring component was not implemented because

funding was not available.
IV-64

Future Plans

At the end of the sub-grant period, the Juvenile Diversion Program continued to

provide services on a limited basis. Project leaders were seeking additional funding. 

There was a high-level of commitment from the project staff and the local Police Chief

to continue the program. Although a formal plan was in place to continue the program,

it had not been implemented at the time of the interview. 

Project and Evaluation Summary 

A summary of the Juvenile Diversion Program, including the objectives and

activities, and a summary of the evaluation measures and actions, is presented in

Exhibit IV-10 on the next page. The Caliber evaluation team substantiated that the

project was operating as planned with the exception that the mentoring component had

been dropped due to lack of funding. The data collected by the project suggest that the

project is successfully diverting most of the youth served and is successfully curtailing

violent and/or substance abusing behaviors.
IV-65

EXHIBIT IV-10

PROJECT NAME: Westside Social Services: Juvenile Diversion Program

NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION : The Juvenile Diversion Program is an 8-week group counseling program

for 12 to 18 year-old youth with family, school or legal problems. Automatic program referral is made for

youth residing in Avondale, Goodyear, or Litchfield Park, per intergrovenmental agreement agreement

between the City of Avondale and the Juvenile Court Center. The program's long-term goal is to reduce

the number of youth referred to juvenile court in the communities of Avondale and Goodyear.

OBJECTIVES/ACTIVITIES: MEASURES/INDICATORS:

• To improve self-esteem, family • Number of participants without drug use,

communication, anger management, and gang involvement, or juvenile system

other skills which enable at-risk youth to contact (at various points up to 12 months

avoid involvement with drugs, gangs, and following program completion)

the criminal justice system

• To provide 24 hours of counseling to

improve communication skills, cultural • Number of intakes

awareness and behavior control

• To develop and conduct a "Youth

Speakers Bureau" for participants to • Improvement in participants' life skills 

speak before neighborhood groups and

city council meetings, etc. • Establishment of a Youth Speakers

• Number of referrals

• Number of youth completing program

Bureau

• Number of events including youth

speakers

• Number of participants engaged in

speakers bureau

EVALUATION ACTIONS:

• The Caliber evaluation focused on documenting project plans and project activities.

• On-site interviews and document reviews were conducted.

• The evaluation found that all components but the mentoring component were implemented as

planned.

• Evidence suggests that this project is effective in diverting youth and curtailing violence and

substance abuse.
V. LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE

ARIZONA DMC INITIATIVE
Feyerherm, W., Disproportionate Minority Confinement: Lessons Learned from the Pilot State 1

Experiences. Prepared for the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. April

1995.

V-1

V. LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE ARIZONA

DMC INITIATIVE

A primary objective of the Disproportionate Minority Confinement (DMC)

initiative, sponsored by the Office of Juvenile and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), is

to "test" various approaches to intervening and correcting DMC. These demonstrations

or tests would then provide opportunities for other states and locales to learn from pilot

state experiences. To this end, the evaluation of the Arizona initiative was structured to

support the identification and documentation of lessons learned from the state and

local efforts. 

The purpose of this chapter is to present the thoughts and ideas of the

evaluators and the state and local project staff as to the strengths and limitations of the

Arizona DMC demonstration. The structure of the analysis of the evaluation findings

was heavily influenced by the thoughts and analysis presented in the companion

document by Feyerherm, W., Disproportionate Minority Confinement: Lessons

Learned from the Pilot State Experiences.1

1. OVERVIEW

The OJJDP DMC demonstration was structured to encourage each pilot state to

engage in the following problem identification and problem solving process:

• Assign organizational responsibility [step 1]

• Define disproportionate minority confinement using qualitative data and

statistical techniques [step 2]

• Identify factors that contribute to DMC [step 3]

• Design interventions that are responsive to the root causes of/factors that

contribute to DMC [step 4]

• Monitor the impact of the interventions on DMC [step 5]

• Recognize system effects of the DMC activity [step 6]
 Feyerherm, p.1. 2

V-2

During the DMC Phase I and Phase II time periods, the Arizona DMC demonstration

completed all activities associated with the first four steps, listed above. There has

been insufficient time, however, to monitor the impact of the demonstration on DMC or,

for the pilot projects to have had an impact on DMC. Since the reduction of DMC within

Arizona is the ultimate measure of a successful demonstration, the Arizona story is

incomplete. The DMC project staff, as well as the evaluation, however, have identified

early system effects of the DMC activities [step 6].

A schematic overview of the DMC process is provided in Exhibit V-1 on the next

page. The "lessons learned" at each stage in the process are summarized in diagrams

and described in the paragraphs below.

2. SPECIFICATION OF LESSONS LEARNED 

The following paragraphs describe the DMC process and corresponding lessons

learned in more detail. The information is organized according to the following topics: 

(1) defining DMC; (2) designing and implementing the intervention; and (3) monitoring

and analyzing DMC solutions.

2.1 Defining the DMC Problem

The process of defining the extent of disproportionate confinement or minority

youth involves both the collection and analysis of statistical data [step 2] and the

identification of factors which contribute to DMC [step 3]. These two activities were

conducted concurrently at the state and local levels during Phase I of Arizona's DMC

project.

Focus on the Problem, Not the Symptoms

There is a growing recognition that the DMC issue must be seen from a systemic

perspective rather than a legal, sociological or service delivery perspective. "In

essence, the DMC problem is a system design issue in that the juvenile justice system

is a collection of decisions and treatments which does not operate equally for youth

from all racial and cultural backgrounds." This perspective is not always immediately 2

obvious, particularly to representatives of the juvenile justice system. Therefore,

Federal or state interventions may be warranted as state and/or local entities are in the 
Designate organizational entity/

assign responsibility

 [Step1]

Define DMC

 [Step 2]

Identify factors that contribute to

DMC

 [Step 3]

Design interventions that rectify DMC

 [Step 4]

Recognize system effects of the DMC

activity

 [Step 6]

 DMC PROCESS

 Monitor impact of interventions on DMC

 [Step 5]

EXHIBIT V-1

OVERVIEW OF ARIZONA DMC PROCESS AND

 CORRESPONDING LESSONS LEARNED

• Focus on the problem, not the symptoms

• Involve key players in total DMC definition process

• Insure local planning

• Clearly specify a role for the state

• Choose interventions strategies that respond to

system needs

• Take a comprehensive view when planning and

funding the interventions

• Develop alternative resources to offset deficits

• Recognize information needs and create new

information systems as needed

• Institutionalize mechanisms for examining DMC issues.

LESSONS LEARNED

V-3
 Ibid, p.6-11 3

V-4

initial stages of DMC problem definition. Under OJJDP auspices, sophisticated

analysis tools and techniques have been developed which would greatly assist state

and/or local policy-makers to "cut to the chase" of the DMC issue. 3

Involve Key Players in Total DMC Definition Process

Local pilot project experiences in Arizona clearly demonstrated the value of

involving the agency and community representatives in the total process of defining

DMC, designing the interventions, and correcting the design during implementation. 

For example, the Pima Prevention Partnership project demonstrated the clearest

understanding of DMC, its root causes, and the need for systematic change. Staff

credited their full and active participation in the Phase I data gathering as contributing

to their understanding and their interventions design. Similarly, the Pinal Hispanic

Council was involved in Phase I and developed a responsive intervention in Phase II.

2.2 Designing and Implementing the DMC Intervention

The Arizona DMC demonstration project provided several opportunities to learn

from the experiences of the local projects or to substantiate lessons learned from the

other pilot states. Lessons associated with the DMC interventions design and

implementation are described below.

Insure Local Planning

The Arizona demonstration was based on the recognition that community

involvement and "buy-in" are essential to DMC interventions planning. The nature of

the DMC problem and its magnitude and causes varies across local jurisdictions. 

Therefore, the planning and interventions design and implementation must occur at the

local level.

The experiences of the Arizona local pilot projects substantiate this

understanding. The breadth of the interventions, themselves, and the extent to which

the interventions were designed to respond to local conditions, is persuasive evidence

of the wisdom of local involvement.
Ibid, p. 11. 4

Ibid, p. 9. 5

Ibid, p. 12. 6

V-5

Clearly Specify a Role for the State

It is recommended that the state play a significant role in supporting local design

and implementation efforts. For example, state staff could usefully provide analytic 4

and assessment support, review and revise related state policies and procedures, and

monitor resources.

Based on the comments of Arizona pilot project staff, the state role during Phase

II was inadequately defined and, therefore, unsatisfactorily carried out. According to

the local perspective, the state primarily monitored the local grants. It would have been

more helpful if the state had been able to overcome changes in staff, political climate,

and committee membership to provide more proactive support to local pilot projects.

Choose Intervention Strategies That Respond to System Needs

When other youth-serving systems provide alternatives to juvenile justice system

decisions, they may have a substantial impact on the operation of the juvenile justice

system and the correction of DMC. Several of the Arizona local pilot projects were 5

designed based on this premise. The EMPACT-SPC, Pinal Hispanic Council and

Westside Social Services diversion programs all functioned to provide alternatives to

the juvenile justice system.

The effectiveness of the diversion approach cannot, yet, be clearly measured;

however, locally collected data suggest that youth are indeed being diverted. The

impact of these alternative services is likely to influence either the input of cases into

the juvenile justice system or the fate of cases at an early stage in the justice system.

Take a Comprehensive View When Planning and Funding the Interventions

Overall, OJJDP’s DMC demonstration has shown the importance of involving

more persons and service systems than just the juvenile justice system. In sites where

new programming was developed only in response to new OJJDP money, the results

have been far less extensive and effective than when the planning extended to other

resource and programming streams. The importance of adopting a comprehensive 6

view when planning and funding DMC interventions was clearly demonstrated by the
Ibid, p. 18. 7

V-6

Arizona local pilot sites. Organizations which had multiple resource streams, such as

the Prima Prevention Partnership and the Panel Hispanic Council, were better able to:

(1) plan a more comprehensive approach; (2) identify substantial matching funds;

(3) provide organizational back-up to the DMC intervention; and (4) plan to continue

the interventions once the OJJDP "new" money was completed.

Develop Alternative Resources to Offset Deficits

Community-based organizations (CBOs) generally, and the Arizona pilot project

sites in particular, are experts at creatively meeting resource deficits. Methods used by

the Arizona projects included recruiting and training volunteer "labor" and aggressively

seeking other funding sources. In these efforts, the Arizona pilot projects generated an

enormous interest in problems of disproportionate minority confinement.

2.3 Monitoring and Institutionalizing The DMC Solution

DMC must be monitored to assess the effectiveness of the DMC interventions

and ensure that the problems of DMC are not being further aggregated. Moreover, it is

incumbent upon the five pilot states, as well as other states, to institutionalize

mechanisms to monitor and correct problems of DMC. Lessons associated with these

requirements are described below.

Recognize Information Needs and Create New Information Systems as Needed 

The OJJDP DMC project demonstrated information gaps within each of the five

pilot states. None of the five states had an information system which was adequate for

DMC assessment. Arizona has, however, developed a plan to address their DMC- 7

related information needs. A new, on-line, statewide juvenile justice information system

will soon be implemented. Arizona's DMC leaders are assisting the implementation of

the Juvenile On-line Tracking System (JOLTS). This system should ensure uniform

data collection and the adequate capture of DMC-related information.

Institutionalize Mechanisms for Examining DMC Issues

At the time of the evaluation site visit (February 1995), and in contrast to the

other four DMC pilot states, Arizona had not institutionalized mechanisms to continue
V-7

the assessment of DMC issues and develop responses. In fact, all state-level

GOCstaff who had knowledge of and experience with the DMC initiative and the OJJDP

DMC mandate were no longer associated with the Office. Further, the Juvenile Justice

Specialist, with whom DMC responsibilities rest, was new to the position.

As described in Chapter III, however, state-level DMC planning and activities

have since accelerated. The Arizona Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee (AJJAC)

recently (May 1995) reconstituted the Minority Youth Issues Committee (MYIC) and

regular meetings have resumed. MYIC now contains six AJJAC members as well as

several community representatives—grass-roots DMC leaders from minority

communities. Plans to establish a systemic approach to addressing DMC are being

developed. Plans to institutionalize mechanisms for monitoring DMC are being

implemented. As discussed previously, JOLTS should ensure the adequate capture of

DMC-related information on a state-wide routine basis.
APPENDIX AGLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS
V-1

APPENDIX A

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS

ADE - Arizona Department of Education

AJJAC - Arizona Juvenile Justice Advisory Council

CASA - Court Appointed Special Advocates

CSAP - Center for Substance Abuse Prevention

EBP - Effective Black Parenting class

ET - Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth Project

DES - Department of Economic Security

DYTR - Department of Youth Treatment and Rehabilitation

DMC - Disproportionate Minority Confinement

GDC - Governor's Division for Children 

IEU - Indian Education Unit (Arizona Department of Education)

JOLTS - Juvenile On-line Tracking System

JOM - Johnson-O'Malley program network

JJS - Juvenile Justice System

MAG - Mothers Against Gangs

MVJHS - Mesa Vista Junior High School

MYIC - Minority Youth Issues Committee

OJJDP - The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

PJCC - Pima County Juvenile Court Center

PPD - Phoenix Police Department

PPP - Pima Prevention Partnership

RFP - Request for Proposal

SAG - State Advisory Group

SM - Single Moms class

UL - Urban League
APPENDIX BSTATE-LEVEL INTERVIEW GUIDE
B-1

DISPROPORTIONATE MINORITY CONFINEMENT (DMC) INITIATIVE 

ARIZONA

STATE-LEVEL INTERVIEW GUIDE

NAME : POSITION/TITLE : 

LOCATION : OFFICE : 

DATE : INTERVIEWER : 

Introduction:

Good morning/afternoon.

Caliber Associates is a consulting firm located near Washington, D.C. specializing in

the evaluation of social service programs. Caliber is currently under contract with the

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to provide evaluation

services for the Governor's Office for Children, Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth

Project.

Based on the data required for an evaluation of the Arizona initiative, interviews are

being conducted with key personnel from the Governor's Office for Children about the

Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth Project. We are here today to document the

state-level approaches to remedy minority over-representation.

Do you have any questions before we begin?
B-2

1. Please briefly describe the Governor's Office for Children—its' mission,

functions, staffing and programs. How is it that this Office has

responsibility for OJJDP mandates, etc.?

2. Please briefly describe your own job.

• Title

• Responsibilities

• Length of time in job

3. Please describe your participation and support of the DMC initiative

(i.e., brief chronology of events).
B-3

4. What are your perceptions of factors that contribute to the problem of

DMC?

5. What role do you think various levels of government should play to

eliminate DMC?

• Federal

• State

• County 

6. What were the major issues or problems that your organization wanted to

address through the Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth Project (ET)? 
B-4

• What/who were the sources of support of the Project?

• What/who presented barriers to the Project?)

7. What was the level of coordination or cooperation within the state in

developing/implementing the ET project?

8. Among politicians, bureaucrats and others who do not support ET, what

were their reasons and rationale?

9. What were the total resources devoted to ET? (Trying to get at other nonfederal contributions/sources of commitment).
B-5

10. What were the factors that facilitated the implementation and operation of

the ET project?

11. What obstacles occurred when implementing and operating the ET project?

12. Please describe your data/information systems.

13. Do you think that the ET project impacted or affected the target population?

14. What have been the most important lessons learned from implementing and

operating the ET project?
B-6

15. What is the level of commitment to continue the ET project?

• What/who are the sources of commitment?

• Are there any follow-up plans?

• How will Arizona monitor the remedies of DMC? Who will do what,

when and where?

16. Do you have any final questions or comments?

This interview is now completed. Thank you very much for your time and assistance.
APPENDIX CPROJECT STAFF INTERVIEW GUIDE
C-1

DISPROPORTIONATE MINORITY CONFINEMENT (DMC) INITIATIVE 

ARIZONA

PROJECT STAFF INTERVIEW GUIDE

NAME : POSITION/TITLE : 

LOCATION : PROGRAM NAME : 

DATE : INTERVIEWER : 

Introduction:

Good morning/afternoon.

Caliber Associates is a consulting firm located near Washington, D.C. specializing in

the evaluation of social service programs. Caliber is currently under contract with the

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to provide evaluation

services for the Governor's Office for Children, Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth

Project.

Based on the data required for an evaluation of the Arizona initiative, interviews are

being conducted with key personnel from each of the seven (7) organizations that

received a subgrant from the Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth Project. We are

here today to document the community-designed approaches to remedy minority

overrepresentation implemented by this DMC program.

Do you have any questions before we begin?
C-2

I. BACKGROUND ON DMC

1. Please briefly describe your organization.

2. Please briefly describe your own job.

- Title

- Responsibilities

- Length of time in job
C-3

3. How did your organization first become aware of the Equitable Treatment of

Minorities Project?

4. Are you aware of the initial data collection phase of the Equitable Treatment

of Minority Youth Project?

- Were any of the initial data used when developing this DMC program?

5. How was the DMC grant proposal developed?
C-4

6. What were the major issues or problems that your organization wanted to

address through this DMC program?

7. What was the level of coordination or cooperation with the state in

developing/ implementing your DMC program?

II. DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF DMC

8. Please breifly describe what your role and responsibilities have been

regarding the DMC program?

9. Please briefly describe your DMC program.

- Length of time in operation

- Program total costs 
C-5

- Sources of funding

- State

- Others

- Target population

- Goals and objectives
C-6

- Services provided or functions of the DMC program

- Staffing levels

- Facilities used

- Current caseload

- DMC program capacity
C-7

10. What were the factors that facilitated the implementation and operation of

the DMC program?

11. What obstacles occurred when implementing and operating the DMC

program?

12. Please describe your data/information systems.

- Sources of data

- Type of data collected

- Where is data reported?
C-8

- Is there any DMC program data available for analysis?

III. EFFECTIVENESS/OUTCOMES OF THE DMC INITIATIVE

13. Do you think that the DMC program impacted or affected the target

population?

- Do you collect data that supports your conclusion?

14. Did the DMC program have other major impacts or benefits?

15. What have been the most important lessons learned from implementing and

operating the DMC program?
C-9

IV. FUTURE PLANS ON DMC

16. What is the level of commitment to continue the DMC program?

- Are there any follow-up plans?

17. Do you have any final questions or comments?

This interview is now completed. Thank you very much for your time and assistance.