Wayne Welsh, Philip Harris: Criminal Justice Policy and Planning, 4th Edition

Case Studies with Questions and Answers

Chapter 02: Setting Goals and Objectives

Scenario based on Case Study 2–1 (Top-Down versus Bottom-Up Goal Setting: Responding to Negative Information about Conditions of Juvenile Confinement)

In 1994, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) of the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, released a report that showed deplorable conditions in the facilities housing juvenile delinquents across the country. The Congressionally mandated study found that in the nearly 1,000 facilities operating at that time, there were “substantial and widespread deficiencies” in living space, security, control of suicidal behavior, and health care. The facilities were overcrowded, youths and staff were suffering high rates of injuries, suicidal behavior was frequent, and health and mental health care was inadequate and sometimes unavailable. The report also found that the conditions were no better in facilities that met correctional accreditation standards. Joining businesses and government in the movement toward standards that indicate performance rather than process,

Questions

What goals were established by OJJDP and other stakeholders to address this problem?

Correct Answer

Leaders at the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) set out to develop national performance-based standards, setting the highest goals for facilities and providing outcome measures (numbers such as rates, percentages) to monitor progress meeting the standards. In addition, they, along with the Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators, created a system for juvenile agencies to demonstrate improvement and success in treating confined youths through national standards and performance outcome measures.

How were these goals translated into measurable objectives?

Correct Answer

The Council of Correctional Administrators, along with OJJDP, assembled an Advisory Board with members representing national organizations and relevant government entities to define and guide PbS’ development in order to create widely accepted and supported national standards and encourage voluntary participation.

What outcome data are measured and how are these data used?

Correct Answer

PbS asks facilities to report data twice a year on 106 outcomes that indicate performance toward meeting 30 standards derived from seven goals—one goal for each of the following components of facility operations: safety, security, order, programming (including education), health/mental health, justice, and reintegration. In this case, standards are objectives that are defined in terms of the values of the system and best practices among facilities nationally. Facilities collect the data from administrative records, youth records, youth exit interviews, incident reports, and climate surveys of youths and staff. The information is entered into the web portal and is reported back in easy-to-read bar graph reports. Each outcome is reported for the current data-collection period as well as any past data collections, allowing for comparison over time. The reports also include the average outcome of the field, which provides a quick analysis of whether the facility is doing better or worse than other PbS facilities. The outcomes include critical rates such as injuries, suicidal behavior, assaults, time in isolation, percentages of youths receiving suicide and mental health screenings, changes in academic achievement from admission to release, and percentages of youths completing educational, life skills, behavior management, and other programming curricula.