Office of Justice Programs, Innovation - Partnerships – Safer Neighborhoods

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) Serving Children, Families and Communities

OJJDP Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders

Prosecutor’s Early Intervention Program (PEIP)

Intervention:

The Prosecutor’s Early Intervention Program (PEIP) was designed to address behavioral problems of children in prekindergarten through the sixth grade. The program was developed by the Family Services Division of the District Attorney’s Office in Louisiana’s 16th Judicial District. The PEIP program concentrates on three treatment components that are aimed at the personal development of referred youth:

Case management and the coordination of multiple services
Individual and group counseling
Targeted wraparound interventions

The program was developed using earlier research that concentrated on effective early intervention programming as well as on research examining the onset and development of serious problem behavior in young children (Lipsey et al. 2010).

Two criteria were used to determine eligibility for PEIP. First, there had to be a documented violation of the Families In Need of Services (FINS) statute. The FINS statute provides the state, through the juvenile court, the legal ability to intervene in the life of a child under specific situations, including when a child repeatedly violates school rules, when a child is ungovernable, or when a parent contributes directly to the children’s problem. In PEIP, a FINS complaint triggered an assessment of child and family dynamics, which was then used to direct the family to specific services.

Second, schools could nominate children to participate in PEIP. However, schools had to provide documentation of prior efforts to remedy the child’s behavior, and how those efforts failed, before nominating children (to avoid unnecessary nominations). Case managers from the District Attorney’s Office would work at the schools to screen cases referred from school officials and determine whether the child met the statutory requirements for admission into PEIP. If the child met the requirements, the case manager would assess the child’s level of risk using the Complaint Assessment form and the Classroom Behavior Inventory (CBI). The outcome of the risk assessment determined the level of program involvement.

For children assessed as low risk, a letter was sent to the parent (or parents) on district attorney letterhead asking the parents to contact the school regarding their child’s problem behavior. Case managers continued to monitor low-risk cases to determine whether the parent could resolve the problem without further intervention. If the parent could resolve the problem, the case was closed and no further intervention would be necessary. If the parent was unable to resolve the problem, the child’s risk was upgraded.

For children assessed as high risk, the parent was (or parents were) sent a letter with an appointment for an Informal Family Conference. The conference was held at the school with the principal, the case manager, the parent (or parents), and the child (if appropriate). The purpose of the conference was to

Discuss the behavioral or school performance problems that the child had been experiencing as well as any other family-related matters
Identify potential solutions and services that would address these problems
Link the child and the family to these services

The information that was collected and discussed during the conference was used to develop a contract referred to as the Informal Family Service Plan. The Service Plan, an agreement to be signed by all parties who attended the conference, outlined specific services that are offered by various community service agencies and the school that would address the current issues discussed during the conference. Based on the information collected from the child assessment, the parent assessment, and during the conference, the case managers used a matrix of services developed by the PEIP program to guide them in selecting specific targeted interventions that match the child’s risks and needs.

PEIP case managers provided referrals to community-based services for the child and the family depending on the identified needs. Programs provided by the Family Service Division in partnership with other agencies included Parenting Wisely, The Incredible Years, Student Created Aggression Replacement Education (SCARE), and Mentoring Moms. Other examples of services provided include in-home counseling, tutoring, and psychological evaluations. Counseling could also be provided by Family Service Division counselors, who were school based, and conducted individual and group sessions for children participating in PEIP.

If the child and family showed compliance with the Service Plan, the PEIP case manager monitored the case until the presenting behavioral problem had been resolved or until 90 school days has lapsed. The CBI was completed a second time, to serve as a posttest. The CBI pretest and posttest scores were compared, and grades and school performance data also assessed. If the objectives of the Service Plan had been achieved, the case manager closed the case. Case managers could modify the Service Plan to include additional service referrals based on the family’s changing needs or circumstances. At the end of the 90 school days, the case manager was required to close the case, except under rare circumstances.

However, if the presenting problem was not resolved through the PEIP process and the behavioral problem persisted, then a referral to the FINS committee occurred (the FINS committee includes personnel from the school system, the Louisiana Office of Behavioral Health, and the Louisiana Department of Child and Family Services). The FINS committee worked with PEIP staff if more intensive or prolonged services were required for a child. As a last report, the District Attorney’s Office would petition the juvenile court requesting judicial involvement.

Evaluation Methodology:

Study 1
The quasi-experimental evaluation of PEIP conducted by Wright and colleagues (2012) included 639 students in prekindergarten through sixth grade from 64 schools in five parishes in southern Louisiana. The sample of students was 72 percent male and 68 percent African American, with an average age of 8.5 years.

The study involved children sorted into three groups: the group that received PEIP (n=240), the group that received the Early Intervention Program (EIP) [n=217], or the control group that received no programming (n=182). Children were randomly assigned to the PEIP group or the EIP group, while the comparison group included students who came from schools that were not yet offering the program. The PEIP group received the full intervention, including the involvement of the District Attorney’s Office. Children in the EIP group received the same services as the PEIP group, except the District Attorney’s Office was not involved (for example, letters to the parents were not sent on with the district attorney’s letterhead and there was no discussion of potential legal consequences of noncompliance with the program).

A Complaint Form for all students in the study was completed by school personnel. Items from the form that were used as outcomes in the study included the number of excused and unexcused absences and teacher-reported conduct grades. Information was also taken from a modified version of the Classroom Behavior Inventory that included a list of 57 problem behaviors. Teachers estimated the frequency with which each problem behavior occurred. Finally, the Closure Form, which was filled out by case managers at the closure of a case, provided information to determine whether a case succeeded. Cases were considered successful if 1) teachers noted improvements in the original problem that caused the referral and 2) the student showed measured improvements from Time 1 to Time 2 in teacher-assessed conduct in school performance and attendance. In the control group, case managers completed the Closure Form during the time period corresponding to the average closure time for similar cases in the PEIP and EIP groups.

Behavioral changes in children from Time 1 to Time 2 were analyzed by creating residual change scores. In addition, analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests with Tukey’s HSD (for honestly significant difference) post hoc analyses were used to analyze indicators that labeled cases as successful or unsuccessful.

Evaluation Outcome:

Study 1
School Absences, Suspensions, and Conduct Grades
When the results of the PEIP and EIP groups were combined, participation in the program significantly reduced school absences and school suspensions compared with the control group. Participation was also significantly and positively associated with school conduct grades.

When the PEIP and EIP groups were compared with the control group separately, program participation was still associated with significant reductions in school absences and school suspensions. However, a different pattern emerged with the school conduct grades. Participation in the EIP was not statistically associated with changes in conduct grades, while participation in the PEIP was associated with significant increase in teacher-evaluated conduct.

Problem Behavior
When the results of the PEIP and EIP groups were combined, participation in the program significantly reduced oppositional behavior, callous-unemotional behavior, and developmental behavior (compared with the control group). Program participation was associated with net overall reductions in problem behavior. However, there was no significant change in violent behavior compared with the control group.

When the PEIP and EIP groups were compared with the control group separately, a different pattern of results emerged. EIP participation was associated with significant reductions in oppositional behavior, callous-unemotional behavior, and overall problem behavior in children compared with the control group, but there was no significant association with PEIP participation on any of those outcomes compared with the control group. PEIP participation was associated with significant improvements in developmental problems, but there was no significant association with EIP participation. Violent behavior was again not significantly reduced in either group compared with the control group.

Successful Cases
Children in the EIP group were significantly more likely to be classified as “successful” than control children on assessments of improvement in excused absences, in-school suspensions, academic grades, and teacher-assessed conduct. Children in the PEIP group were significantly more likely to be classified as “successful” than control children on assessments of improvement in excused absences, in-school suspensions, academic grades, and teacher-assessed conduct, as well as out-of-school suspensions and meeting cumulative outcome criteria.

References:

Lipsey, Mark W., James C. Howell, Marion R. Kelly, Gabrielle Chapman, and Darin Carver. 2010. Improving the Effectiveness of Juvenile Justice Programs: New Perspective on Evidence-Based Practices. Washington, D.C.: Center for Juvenile Justice Reform. http://cjjr.georgetown.edu/pdfs/ebp/ebppaper.pdf

Wright, John Paul, Pamela M. McMahon, Claire Daly, and J. Phil Haney. 2012. “Getting the Law Involved: A Quasi-Experiment in Early Intervention Involving Collaboration Between Schools and the District Attorney’s Office.” Criminology & Public Policy 11(2):227–49.

Program Specification:

Program Type:

Academic Skills Enhancement

Conflict Resolution / Interpersonal Skills

Family Therapy

Truancy Prevention

Wraparound / Case Management

Ethnicity:

African American

White

Gender:

Both

Age:

Elementary School: 5 to 10 years

Target Settings:

Rural

Suburban

Problem Behaviors:

Academic Failure

Truancy

Incorrigibility

DSO Strategies:

Direct Services

DSO Intervention Types:

Prevention

Core Requirements:

Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders (DSO)

Additional Information:

Endorsements:

Status:

Program is in operation at this time.

Performance Measures:

Suggested OJJDP Performance Measures for the Program Types(s):

Delinquency Prevention
Academic Skills Enhancement
Logic Model: PDF
Performance Matrix:PDF
School Programs
Academic Skills Enhancement
Logic Model: PDF
Performance Matrix:PDF
Delinquency Prevention
Family Therapy
Logic Model: PDF
Performance Matrix:PDF
Mental Health Services
Family Therapy
Logic Model: PDF
Performance Matrix:PDF
School Programs
Truancy Prevention
Logic Model: PDF
Performance Matrix:PDF

Contact Information:

Program Developer:

Sixteenth Judicial District Family Service Division
300 Iberia Street, Suite 200
New Iberia, LA 70560
Phone: 337.369.3804
Fax: 337.364.5302 WebSite: http://www.16jda.com/Family_Servie.htm

OJJDP Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders Best Practices Database
The OJJDP Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders Best Practices Database was created and developed by Development Services Group
under Cooperative Agreement #2008-JF-FX-0072.