NJJEC Bulletin September 2013

The NJJEC Bulletin

NJJEC is a project of the 

Justice Research and 

Statistics Association 

funded by the Office of 

Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention

(OJJDP). NJJEC’s purpose is 

to improve the evaluation 

capacity of states, localities, 

and tribes and facilitate the 

use of evidence-based 

programs and practices in 

juvenile justice. The NJJEC 

Bulletin is disseminated 

directly to subscribers and 

posted on the NJJEC 

website, and provides 

information related to 

juvenile justice evaluation 

that is of interest to state, 

local, and tribal juvenile 

justice professionals. 

We welcome your 

participation! If you would 

like to submit an article, 

suggest a news item for the 

Bulletin, or ask a question 

about evaluation, e-mail 

njjec@jrsa.org. For more 

information about the 

resources available through 

the National Juvenile Justice 

Evaluation Center, visit the 

NJJEC website. 

What’s Going On at 

NJJEC? 

Thank you to all who 

attended our webinar, 

Demystifying Survey Data 

Collection, on September 5! 

Panelists discussed the basics 

of survey data collection and 

reporting, including how to 

translate paper survey data 

into a spreadsheet for 

analysis. The presentation 

incorporated brief video clips

explaining data analysis skills 

such as computing averages, 

data tabulation, constructing 

charts and graphs, and 

calculating change. 

The archived webinar, 

including videos, will be 

available shortly on the NJJEC 

Trainings page and the OJJDP 

NTTAC website. The video 

clips are available under the 

Data Demos heading on the

NJJEC Skill-Building page. 

NJJEC staff are creating a 

second narrated slideshow for 

our Hiring and Working with 

an Evaluator series. Part II: 

Translating Evaluation 

Results into Action! will 

explain ways to leverage 

program data for 

improvement and 

sustainability. 

Upcoming Events of 

Interest

2013 Bi-Annual Adult and 

Juvenile Female Offenders 

Conference

October 6-10

The 15th Bi-Annual Adult and 

Juvenile Female Offenders 

(ADFO) conference will be held 

October 6 through 10 in 

Portland, Maine. The 

conference facilitates training 

and networking among 

practitioners, researchers, and 

administrators working with 

female adult and juvenile 

offenders. Check the conference 

website for the agenda and 

registration information!

19th National Symposium on 

Juvenile Services 

October 20-24

The National Partnership for 

Juvenile Services will host its 

National Symposium on Juvenile 

Services October 20 through 24 

in Louisville, Kentucky. Goals of 

the symposium include sharing 

best practices and building 

partnerships to improve youth 

services. Practitioners and 

policymakers can find more 

information on the symposium 

online!
NJJEC Bulletin Page 2

8

th Global Youth Justice Training 

December 3-5 

Registration is open for the 8th Global Youth 

Justice training to be held December 3 

through 5 in Las Vegas, Nevada. This 

training will focus on establishing, 

enhancing, and/or expanding youth courts, 

and topics include program 

evaluation/satisfaction, implementation of 

programmatic elements, and grant writing. 

Check Global Youth Justice’s Training 

Institutes page for more information!

8

th Annual Models for Change National 

Conference

The MacArthur Foundation will host its 8th

Annual Models for Change National 

Conference December 16 and 17 in 

Washington, DC. See the conference 

website for details, and review the Call for 

Workshop Presentations to learn more 

about key audiences and workshop topics.

Featured Resource:

Juvenile Justice Resource Hub 

The Juvenile Justice Resource Hub is a new 

project of the Juvenile Justice Information 

Exchange sponsored by the MacArthur 

Foundation and the National Juvenile Justice 

Network. The Hub provides a centralized 

location for juvenile justice information, 

including research studies, journalism, data, 

and resources for practitioners and 

policymakers. 

Each topic area includes a summary of the 

topic, key issues in the area (for example, 

“Who are these youth?” and “When should 

screening and assessment tools be used?”), 

reform efforts, resources, and a list of expert 

individuals and organizations working on 

that topic. 

Two topics are currently available. Mental 

Health and Substance Abuse resources 

include an article highlighting some states’ 

successes in the use of evidence-based 

practices to address mental health and 

substance abuse issues for youth; a glossary 

of key concepts, effective screening tools, 

and relevant decision making points in the 

juvenile justice system; and a set of 

resources that includes information about 

funding mental health and substance abuse 

treatment and legal rights of youth. 

Community-Based Alternatives resources 

include information about key issues such 

as youth eligibility and funding for these 

programs, reform trends such as the 

removal of zero tolerance policies, and 

resources on a number of important topics 

including potential negative effects of 

diversion such as net-widening. 

Upcoming topics include Juvenile Indigent 

Defense, Evidence-Based Practices, 

Aftercare, and Racial-Ethnic Fairness. 

Evaluation Feature:

AEBP’s Assessment of 

State Progress Implementing 

Proven Programs 

The Association for the Advancement of 

Evidence-Based Practice conducted a study 

of states’ use of evidence-based programs 

and practices (EBP) in juvenile justice and 

delinquency prevention. The results of the 

study are presented in Implementing Proven 

Programs for Juvenile Offenders: Assessing 

State Progress. 
NJJEC Bulletin Page 3

The authors examined the use of family-based 

therapy for youth as an indicator of the use of 

best practices, including “name brand” 

evidence-based programs such as Functional 

Family Therapy (FFT), Multisystemic Therapy 

(MST), Multidimensional Treatment Foster 

Care (MTFC), and the Nurse-Family 

Partnership (NFP) program. The report 

includes a discussion of strategies and 

characteristics the most successful states have 

in common, as well as some of the common 

challenges. 

The five states leading in availability of familybased therapy programs are Connecticut, New 

Mexico, Maine, Hawaii, and Pennsylvania. The 

report describes the processes of evidencebased practice implementation in each state.

The authors describe the steps necessary to 

successfully implement EBP, including 

adequate identification of the specific problem 

and target population, appropriate selection of 

a program that is both effective and costbeneficial, and appropriate intervention. 

The authors note that three of the five leading 

states had been sued by the Department of 

Justice for juvenile confinement conditions 

prior to initiating their efforts in the area of 

family based treatment, which created a 

climate favorable to change in these states. In 

addition, there was strong political support for 

changes to the juvenile justice systems in the 

other two states, particularly with regard to 

criteria for confinement. 

Most of the states benefited from the 

engagement of strong leadership to start the 

movement towards implementing evidencebased prevention and intervention programs. 

Four of the five pilot tested programs before 

extending their efforts statewide. Technical 

assistance and funding support, particularly 

during start-up and implementation, were also 

critical to the success of these programs. 

The report also highlights some of the 

obstacles to implementing evidence-based 

programs (in this case, family-based therapy). 

These obstacles included financial 

limitations, particularly constraints that 

result from the county-based funding systems 

of most juvenile justice services; legacy 

programs that retained longstanding funding, 

thereby diverting funds from proven 

programs; and difficulty coordinating efforts 

between multiple agencies and systems to 

refer youth to appropriate interventions.

The report concludes by summarizing seven 

distinct “lessons” learned from the study. 

These lessons include the importance of 

collaboration, active involvement of key 

stakeholders in the implementation process, 

and the value of technical assistance in 

supporting evidence-based programs. 

State Spotlight:

Missouri 

For decades, the Missouri juvenile justice 

system has been moving away from a 

correctional model to a rehabilitative and 

therapeutic model. The state has found 

success in its approach, as Missouri’s systeminvolved youth have exhibited achievement in 

educational attainment, employment and 

recidivism.

Tim Decker, Director of the Missouri Division 

of Youth Services, recently delivered a 

presentation on the Missouri Approach at the 

National Criminal Justice Association’s 2013 

National Forum in Chicago, Illinois. In a 

session entitled Embedding Evidence-Based 

Practices (EBP) in Local Programs, Mr. Decker 

discussed the treatment-oriented, trauma-
`

informed approach of the Missouri Division of 

Youth Services (DYS). 

The agency employs a youth development 

perspective to address a variety of risk factors, 

including educational disabilities, mental 

health problems, substance abuse, and prior 

system contact. This strategy is employed 

across all levels of system involvement—

prevention, intervention, and response to 

“deep end” youth.

One of the underlying changes necessary to 

fully integrate this approach was a switch in 

philosophy from correctional to rehabilitative 

and therapeutic. This reduces “culture 

conflict” within the system, and aligns the 

views of policymakers, managers, and 

program staff in support of the same 

mission—providing responsive, dynamic, and 

comprehensive services that improve 

outcomes for youth holistically, rather than 

mimicking practices in adult corrections. 

One of the key components of Missouri’s plan 

for working with youth is the adaptability of 

programming and services to meet the 

specific needs of each youth and his or her 

family, rather than expecting youth 

adaptation to services offered. 

Mr. Decker’s presentation also included some 

of the important leadership characteristics 

needed to support evidence-based 

programming for youth. These include a 

constant focus on “what works;” dedication 

to gaining buy-in from all stakeholders, 

including youth and their families; strong 

accountability for results; and the need to 

approach programming as a developmental, 

evolving process. 

Building support and aligning resources have 

been some of the key challenges for Missouri 

in implementing, scaling-up, and sustaining 

this approach. Additional challenges 

included accountability for youth outcomes 

and embedding this approach into each 

agency and organization interacting with 

Missouri’s system-involved youth. 

Mr. Decker noted that the approach was 

evidence-based before the term “evidencebased practice” became popular. Missouri 

DYS uses data to assess its effectiveness, and 

Mr. Decker noted the need to emphasize 

measurement of components critical to

affecting outcomes. 

You can view the slides from Mr. Decker’s 

presentation on the NCJA Forum website., 

and check out www.MissouriApproach.org

for more information!

NJJEC Bulletin Page 4

NJJEC Bulletin is the newsletter of the National Juvenile Justice Evaluation Center. It provides information on NJJEC 

project activities, evaluation-related activities of OJJDP grantees, and upcoming trainings and conferences of interest.

To access NJJEC project information and resources: http://www.jrsa.org/njjec/

To subscribe: http://www.jrsa.org/njjec/newsletter.htm

To unsubscribe: e-mail njjec@jrsa.org

NJJEC is a Project of the Justice Research and Statistics Association. 

Notice of Federal Funding and Federal Disclaimer: This document was prepared under Grant Number 2010-JF-FX-0063 from the 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view or 

opinions in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the 

U.S. Department of Justice.