Program Profile: Juvenile Justice Assessment Planning Referral Placement (JARPP)

This is a training program for juvenile justice probation/parole case managers (PCMs), to promote their use of evidence-based practices to identify the mental health and substance use needs of delinquent youth and increase youth’s access to services. The program is rated Promising. There were statistically significant reductions in re-referral and placement rates for youth whose PCMs received the enhanced training, compared with youth whose PCMs received the standard training or no training.

A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).

This program's rating is based on evidence that includes at least one high-quality randomized controlled trial.

A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).

This program's rating is based on evidence that includes at least one high-quality randomized controlled trial.

Program Goals

Juvenile Justice Assessment Planning Referral Placement (JARPP) is a training curriculum for juvenile justice probation/parole case managers (PCMs). JARPP was designed to promote PCMs’ use of evidence-based practices (EBPs), (including standardized assessment tools, ongoing case planning, and service referral) to identify the mental health and substance use needs of delinquent youths and increase their access to community clinical services. JARPP includes a 3-day training that provides PCMs with content and principles behind the primary elements of JARPP (assessment, case planning, and referral), as well as activities to build the PCMs’ capacity to implement the EBPs effectively. JARPP focuses on service-oriented supervision and on engaging youths and families in planning and behavior change, which is reflected in the training content and skill-building exercises.

Program Activities

The JARPP protocol promotes the use of standardized assessment tools and case planning to identify the needs of youths. The protocol includes 1) a series of standardized assessment tools adopted by the agency, 2) guidelines for treatment matching based on assessment results, and 3) referral procedures for providers (Taxman et al. 2014). For the 3-day core training, an extensive manual of practice guidelines was developed and incorporated into the sessions. PCMs also receive supplemental materials including daily lesson plans, case studies, and materials for role playing. In addition, PCMs receive information on risk and needs assessment and the use of the agency’s intake screens and treatment service planning protocols.

The first day of training, “Understanding and Interacting with Youth: What Works,” provides an understanding and overview of the core areas. These areas include the strengths-based perspective, elements of the case plan and behavioral contracting, roles and responsibilities of the PCM and the supervisor of case management, a review of adolescent development and perspectives on youth culture, and engaging families.

The second day, “Communications and Using Your Tools,” focuses on motivational interviewing (MI) and the use of OARS (open-ended questions, affirmations, reflective listening, and summarizations). The second day also covers risk and needs factors and assessment tools, individualized case plans (with attention to gender and family dynamics), and using sanctions and incentives.

The final training day, “Keeping it Simple,” includes lessons on incorporating MI skills into assessment and planning. Additional lessons include connecting service plans and interventions to stages of behavioral change in youths; skills for dealing with resistant youths; case planning, monitoring, and documentation; and strategies to enhance collaboration with community partners.

The JARPP training model also includes three 2-hour follow-up training sessions, which are held approximately 3, 6, and 12 months following the 3-day (18-hour) core training. Enhanced JARPP training is also an option. Enhanced training consists of a JARPP trainer–an individual recruited from the PCM staff who received additional training—who can function as an onsite peer specialist to office colleagues and provide ongoing assistance in applying the JARPP skills and principles. The peer specialists also identify any concerns or issues that impede the implementation of JARPP training (such as staff resistance to change), which can be addressed in follow-up booster sessions.

Study

Young and colleagues (2013) examined the impact of the Juvenile Justice Assessment Planning Referral Placement (JARPP) curriculum designed for probation/parole case managers (PCMs) using stratified random assignment of a state’s juvenile justice offices. A professional trainer, who had experience working with juveniles and adults in the correctional system, developed the customized curriculum.

The Juvenile Justice Agency offices in one state were narrowed down based on the aggregation of several small adjacent offices in a rural area of the state. Twenty-six Juvenile Justice field offices in one state were randomly assigned to study conditions using a classification procedure which ensured that the study conditions were equally represented in terms of location (urban, suburban, large town, small town/rural), size, and average site score on a survey of probation staff and supervisors. Ultimately, 12 offices were randomized into one of the three study groups: standard training (ST), enhanced training (ET), and no training (NT).

PCMs in the NT group only received training on the risk and needs assessment and participated in 1 day of training on the core concepts of motivation interviewing (MI). PCMs in the ST group received the 3-day training on JARPP during February and March 2008. Additionally, the ST groups received follow-up training provided by JARPP trainers in three 2-hour sessions at 3, 6, and 12 months after the initial 3-day training. PCMs in the ET group also received the 3-day training on JARPP during February and March 2008, and received follow-up training provided by the JARPP trainer in three 2-hour sessions at 3, 6, and 12 months after the initial 3-day training. In contrast to the ST group, PCMs in the ET group also received onsite peer assistance in applying the JARPP skills and principles after the initial 3-day training. The peer assistance was provided by office colleagues who were recruited to serve as onsite peer specialists and receive additional JARPP training.

Juvenile data was collected from the state’s management information system (MIS) on a baseline cohort and two follow-up cohorts. All three cohorts were tracked for a 1-year period following the date their probation or aftercare was opened in the agency MIS. Youths in the baseline cohort were from all 12 study sites and had cases opened during a 4-month period before the 3-day training. At baseline, there were 773 youths across the 12 sites. Youths were split into two follow-up cohorts. The first follow-up cohort consisted of youths with cases opened from the month of the 3-day training to 4 months after the training (n = 789). Youths in the second follow-up cohort had cases opened in the 6th to 10th month after the 3-day training (n = 719). Youths were tracked based on the specific study conditions to which their PCMs were randomly assigned (i.e., ST, ET, or NT). A similar number of youths were in each study group. Of the entire sample of youths, the vast majority were male (84 percent) and the average age was 16 years. The majority (65 percent) identified as African American, 32 percent identified as Caucasian, 2.5 percent identified as Hispanic, and 0.5 percent identified as other/unknown race. At baseline, there were no significant differences between the youths in the ST, ET, and NT groups.

A logistic regression model was used to test the effects of the JARPP training on outcomes of re-referral, detainment, adjudication, and surveillance-oriented placement. The study authors did not conduct subgroup analyses.

The study by Young and colleagues (2013) examined the impacts of the Juvenile Justice Assessment Planning Referral Placement (JARPP) training for probation/parole case managers (PCMs) on recidivism measures of youths. In addition, the study aimed to test the relative effects of “technology transfer strategies” (Taxman et al. 2014). For this study, technology transfer referred to methods that facilitated the adoption and use of evidence-based practices learned during training to the supervision of delinquent youths in real-world settings. The study looked at two types of training: standard training (ST) and enhanced training (ET). The ST and ET groups received the same JARPP training curriculum, with the ET group also receiving onsite peer assistance in applying the JARPP skills and principles after the initial training. The peer specialists were colleagues of the PCMs who had received additional training, and identified any concerns or issues (such as staff resistance to change and stress over time management) that needed to be addressed in follow-up booster sessions. The ET version of JARPP made use of social networks, peer associations, and characteristics of the juvenile justice offices that supported change.

The results from the evaluation by Young and colleagues (2013) showed that in-house peer specialists and the responsiveness to staff concerns (identified by the peer specialists) in follow-up booster sessions helped to show PCMs how the change in supervision practices could fit within the agency’s values and culture, and how practices could be integrated into the ongoing supervision processes. Training alone (as the ST group received) was not sufficient to bring about significant changes, which were reflected in youths’ recidivism rates. Rather, training plus the use of peer specialists and attention to PCMs’ concerns in follow-up sessions resulted in significant impacts on re-referrals and placement rates of youths (Young and et al. 2013).

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

Farrell, Jill L., Douglas Young, and Faye Taxman. 2011. “Effects of Organizational Factors on Use of Juvenile Supervision Practices.” Criminal Justice and Behavior 38(6):565–83.

Taxman, Faye S., Craig Henderson, Doug Young, and Jill Farrell. 2014. “The Impact of Training Interventions on Organizational Readiness to Support Innovations in Juvenile Justice Offices.” Administrative Policy Mental Health 14(2):177–88.

Young, Douglas, Jill Farrell, and David Bierie. 2006. “Best Implementation Practices: Disseminating New Assessment Technologies in a Juvenile Justice Agency.” Crime & Delinquency 52(1):135–58.