THE REBOUND PROGRAM: DEKALB COUNTY (GA) JUVENILE

THE REBOUND PROGRAM: DEKALB COUNTY (GA) JUVENILE DRUG COURT:
A SUMMATIVE EVALUATION (2004-2011)
Presented by: Elandis Miller, M.P.H. Candidate 2011
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The overall purpose of this summative evaluation report is to highlight the findings from seven (7) years of program
THE RESULTS:
A GLIMPSE AT THE CASE STUDY ANALYSIS OF SUCCESSFUL AND UNSUCCESSFUL PARTICIPANTS
implementation for DeKalb County’s Juvenile Drug Court’s Rebound Program. The Rebound Program is designed to
help adolescent participants learn to live drug-free and crime-free through early, continuous, and intense judicially
A CASE STUDY
supervised treatment, mandatory periodic drug testing, and the use of appropriate sanctions and other rehabilitation
request supplemental funds to fill gaps in services, as well as to inform program improvements at the staff and
TOTAL NO.
AGE AT ENTRY
THE REBOUND PROGRAM AT A GLANCE
Aggregate
Judges
Referral of eligible
youth
2010
2011
Collection of
all court,
education,
medical, etc.
Assessment
PO, DA,
PD, & TX
2009
2010
Orientation
2008
2009
Court
Community
Phase I
Probation
Phase II
Phase III
Graduation
15.5
AA -95%
Caucasian -2%
Bi-racial-3%
Hispanic – 1%
15.5
4 Not
documented
21
15.2
1 Not
documented
30
25
AA-90%
Bi-racial -5%
Hispanic -5%
AA-90%
Caucasian-7%
Bi-racial -3%
15.6
100% AA
Education
Phase IV
2006
2007
Phase V
2005
2006
2004
2005
24
Both parents 10%
Single parent 67%
Grandparent(s) 12%
Other 2%
Mixture/Alternate 9%
Not documented 23
Both parents 14%
Mother only 57%
Grandparent(s) 19%
Alternate /Mixture 11%
Both parents 13%
Single parent 75%
Grandparent(s) 0%
Mixture/Alternate 13%
Not documented 14
28
15.6
15
AA-93%
Caucasian-4%
Bi-racial -4%
15.6
10
15.4
AT LEAST A “C”
POSITIVE DRUG
AVERAGE
SCREENING
39%
33 Not
documented
25 NA
IS-86%
Not enrolled -14%
Not documented 7
one wants (him) or care" or when he gets angry with his dad. Based on his comments towards the father and the comments
form the mother, the participant's treatment transitioned to MST with social support in both the mom and father’s home. This
DRUG CHARGE
acknowledged the need for a tutor. The participant had no positive drug screens for the last 8 months. He admitted to drinking
67%
26 Not
documented
1 NA
49%
3 Not
documented
0%
14 Not
documented
1 NA
IS-95%
2 Not documented
79%
2 Not documented
24%
IS-85%
Not Enrolled-15%
3 Not documented
IS-85%
Not Enrolled- 16%
Both parents 6%
Single parent 72%
Grandparent(s) 17%
Alternate 6%
Not documented 6
IS-87%
Not Enrolled- 13%
1 Not documented
Both parents 15%
Mother only 54%
Grandparent(s) 15%
Other 4 %
Mixture/Alternate 12%
Not documented 2
IS-89%
Not Enrolled- 11%
1 Not documented
43%
5 Not documented
2 NA
38%
4 Not documented
5 NA
COHORT
YEARS
TOTAL
NO.
documentation in an effort to glean program effectiveness and lessons learned using summative
REBOUND PROGRAM DOCUMENTATION AND DATA SOURCES
DOCUMENTS/DATA SOURCES
 Program management and implementation
 Rebound Program Brochure/Pamphlet
 Program implementation
 Rebound Drug Court Treatment Program Weekly
Reports
 Client level data
 Programs’ Referral Forms
 Client level data
 Juvenile History Print Outs
 Client level data
 School Transcripts
 Client level data
 Graduation Ceremony Program
 Client level data
 Individual Client Summary/Report
 Client level data
 Rebound Team Roster
 Program management
 Drug Court Program Recommendation
 Client level data
 Certificate of Phase Completion
 Client level data
 Treatment Providers’ End of Year Report
 Client level data
 Psychological Evaluation Report
 Client level data
Program: (1) retention, (2) recidivism, (3) drug use, (4) education/employment, (5)
 Year summary
 Program implementation
phase promotion, and (6) family engagement. A customized Microsoft ACCESS
 School Attendance Inquiry Report
 Client level data
 Parental Rebound Feedback Form
 Program implementation
 Rebound Participant Handbook
 Program
 Progress Evaluation Reports/Notes
 Client level data
 Referral Forms
 Client level data
 Rebound Yearly Outline
 Program management and implementation
 Individual Client School Summary Update
 Client level data
 Drug Screening Results
 Client level data
STEP 5: JUSTIFY EVALUATION FINDINGS
 Juvenile Drug Court Agreement
 Program implementation and client level
data
 The lead evaluator conducted process and outcome analyses, as well as a case study
 OJS Criminal Case Detail Log/Report
 Client level data
 Rebound Client Summary
 Client level data
 JASAE Assessment
 Client level data
 Program Progression Report
 Client level data
 Written letters/papers
 Client level data
 Treatment Meeting Notes
 Program implementation and client level
data
STAKEHOLDER
 The lead evaluator (Ms. Miller) met with key stakeholders from the Juvenile Drug Court
to learn more about the Rebound Program and to determine a strategy for evaluation.
STEP 2: DESCRIBE THE PROGRAM
 The lead evaluator developed and modified comprehensive logic models based on
program documents.
STEP 3: FOCUS
THE
EVALUATION DESIGN
 The evaluation design focused on the following outcome indicators for the Rebound
database was developed to track process and outcome data.
STEP 4: GATHER CREDIBLE EVIDENCE
 Secondary data were retrieved from key Rebound Program partners and entered into
the database.
analysis for each cohort and for each youth within a cohort.
STEP 6: ENSURE DATA UTILITY
 The final step in the evaluation process was to produce a summative evaluation report
that includes programmatic successes and lessons learned.
Aggregate
153
EVALUATION PURPOSE
 Rebound Policies and Procedures Manual
THE
IN
COHORT THREE (3).
The not as successful participant was 15
which were partially successful do to the lack of contact since the individual was detained for some time. Alliance provided
50%
4 Not documented
41%
1 Not
documented
mother having resentment and lack of faith in the program stating the program has increased the participant’s negative
behavior. The participant came to the program with problems complying with rules and regulations at home and school and
the usage of marijuana three to four times a week. The program sought to get the participant enrolled in a GED/Vocational
70%
2 Not documented
64%
Rehabilitation program, or Warren Tech. The team also had the youth reside in a group home for thirty days to help facilitate
treatment and reduce the constant detainments by changing the participant's environment. With the help of the Rebound
64%
5 Not documented
5 NA
81%
2 Not documented
1 NA
57%
1 Not
documented
Program the participant has attended school more regularly and even though the program provided a tutor, the participant still
did not complete homework. It was discovered from the participant's psychological evaluation that the participant had
unresolved and unaddressed issues in life.
42%
5 Not documented
4 NA
100% AA
Both parents 13%
Single parent 73%
Grandparent(s) 7%
Mixture 7%
IS-73%
Not enrolled-36%
20%
5 NA
100% AA
Mother Only 70%
Grandparent(s) 10%
Other 20%
IS-80%
Not enrolled- 20%
29%
2 NA
1 not documented
GRADUATED
The DeKalb County Juvenile Drug Court requested a secondary analysis of program data and
STEP 1: ENGAGE
UNSUCCESSFUL PARTICIPANT
74%
9 Not documented
80%
60%
54%
CONCLUSIONS & LESSONS LEARNED
54%
2 Not
documented
70%
CONCLUSIONS:
THE PROGRAMMATIC APPROACH.
OVERALL
Programmatic trend data suggests that partnerships strengthened over time as
the Rebound Program team appears to have quality improvements and self-evaluation as a part of its standard operating
procedures. Such a strong programmatic approach resulted in participants reducing drug use by 5%. Overall the program
has 47% recidivism rate, which is very close to the goal of 60% of it’s participants not reoffended. Sixty-six percent of the
THE RESEARCH METHODS AND DATA SOURCES FOR SECONDARY ANALYSIS
steps for program evaluation as follows:
OF AN
counseling services to the participant while detained. The participant became non-compliant with the program, as well as the
RESULTS: PARTICIPANTS’ KEY OUTCOMES
evaluator. In this capacity she utilized the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s six (6)
alcohol and smoking cigarettes. He works with his mother occasionally doing screen printing.
years old at enrollment and younger than all the successful youth. The participant received treatment services at Odyssey,
Aftercare
evaluation model. Through an internship opportunity Ms. Elandis Miller was appointed as the lead
participant was failing school, and was suspended nine times. He earned an overall 80 average in summer school, and
A CASE STUDY
Both parents 4%
Single parent 78%
Grandparent(s) 9%
Mixture/Alternate 9%
Not documented 2
AA-96%
Bi-Racial 4%
15.5
SCHOOL STATUS
(IS=IN SCHOOL)
GUARDIAN
Parents
2007
2008
Treatment
153
RACE & ETHNICITY
(AFRICAN AMERICAN)
Schools
Intake
At time of entry, the treatment provider noticed
physically abusing the participant when he was 11. The participant mentioned having suicidal ideation when he thinks that “no
RESULTS: PARTICIPANT’S KEY DEMOGRAPHICS AT TIME OF PROGRAM ENTRY
COHORT YEARS
Probation
COHORT THREE (3). This successful case was a 16 year old African
severe levels of anxiety, depression, and anger. At the time, the youth was living with his father who was reported for
THE RESULTS
end, the summative evaluation data can be used to justify additional funding for effective programmatic components,
Public
Defender
IN
“intellectual and emotional issues” and had the participant evaluated. It was determined that the participant suffered from
including cohort analyses and case studies to learn more about the diversity among participating young people. In the
District
Attorney
SUCCESSFUL PARTICIPANT
American participant with prior arrests for disorderly conduct and theft.
services. This summative evaluation embodies aspects from formative, process, and outcomes evaluation frameworks,
collaborative levels.
OF A
2010-2011
2009-2010
2008-2009
2007-2008
2006-2007
2005-2006
2004-2005
21
30
25
24
28
15
10
57 (38%)
1 Not
documented
8 (38%)
15 (50%)
8 (32%)
7 (29%)
7 (25%)
7 (47%)
5 (50%)
SCHOOL/
WORK
97 (88%)
15 Not
documented
NA 28
9 (82%)
4 Not
documented
6 NA
21 (91%)
7 Not
documented
19 (83%)
1 Not
documented
1 NA
15 (94%)
8 NA
16 (94%)
3 Not
documented
8 NA
9 (82%)
NA 4
8 (89%)
1 Not
documented
participants actually completed the program with 38% achieving the outcomes needed to be declared as a “program
LEVEL OF FAMILY
ENGAGEMENT
RECIDIVISM
LAST DRUG
SCREEN
POSITIVE
64 (47%)
11 Not
documented
NA 6
73 (62%)
24 Not
documented
12 NA
7 (37%)
2 Not
documented
14 (78%)
3 Not
documented
14 (54%)
4 Not
documented
10 (43%)
1 Not
documented
1 NA
6 (32%)
2 Not
documented
3 NA
9 (38%)
2 Not
documented
2 NA
9 (64 %)
NA 1
18 (78%)
7 Not
documented
12 (52%)
1 Not
documented
1 NA
13 (62%)
2 Not
documented
1 NA
12 (75%)
10 Not
documented
2 NA
0 (0%)
7 NA
9 (90%)
5 (56%)
1 Not
documented
(COURT, ACTIVITIES,
HOME, SCHOOL)
52 (47%)
38 Not
documented
NA 3
12 (86%)
7 Not documented
11 (58%)
11 Not
documented
5 (31%)
9 Not documented
4 (22%)
3 Not documented
3 NA
6 (30%)
8 Not documented
9 (64%)
NA 1
5 (50%)
graduate.”
RETENTION
111 (79%)
1 Not documented
11 NA
14 (93%)
6 NA
23 (77%)
CONCLUSIONS: ACTIVITIES
PARENTING CLASS.
Based on the 2011 parental feedback, the overall satisfaction rating for the parenting class was a
4.25 (out of 5.0). Among the parents completing the feedback process, 38% expressed a desire for more parental classes.
Parents were concerned with the high rates of staff turnover at the Potter’s House because it interfered with receiving
adequate and consistent treatment.
CONCLUSIONS: OUTPUT
SCHOOL.
Transcripts, student inquiry, incident history, and attendance query are part of the school monitoring process.
There are special times when process notes are taken due to a visit at the school. Adequate data collection and reporting
21 (91%)
2 NA
methods are in place to monitor school performance and behavior. The school system team representative has made it
easy for youth to enroll into schools once expelled or facilitating a transfer to a more conducive school environment for select
youth. Some criminal charges were committed on school grounds. 86 % of the youth are enrolled in school upon entering
15 (68%)
2 NA
the program and 61% have least than a “C” average. The participants have very low GPA’s and therefore the team continues
to prioritize partnering with diverse programs to assist those youth who have met the requirements to obtain a GED, attend
Youth Challenge Academy or other academy programs, or DeKalb Workforce Development.
20 (74%)
1 NA
8 (57%)
1 Not documented
CONCLUSIONS: OUTCOMES
RECIDIVISM.
Recidivism is one of the key indicators used to judge the effectiveness of criminal justice-based programs.
Therefore, recidivism is one of the primary performance measurements for the Rebound Program. Only 64 participants were
10 (100%)
rearrested or adjudicated for a new charge during or after the program. The programs goal of at least 60% of program
participants not committing a re-offense was not met; however it was close at 53%.