On Good Authority

              – 1 –
The impact of intensive
juvenile probation
programs
On Good Authority
Vol. 6, No. 1
August 2002
On Good Authority is a periodic
briefing on criminal justice program
research and evaluation. This report
was written by staff Research Analyst
Sharyn Adams. It is a summary of an
evaluation of the juvenile probation
programs in Peoria, Winnebago, and
Christian counties. The evaluation was
conducted by the Center for Legal
Studies at the University of Illinois at
Springfield. Copies of the evaluation
are available from the Authority’s
Research and Analysis Unit.
The Illinois Criminal Justice
Information Authority is a state
agency dedicated to improving the
administration of criminal justice in
Illinois. The basic functions of the
Authority are criminal justice research,
federal and state grants administration,
and information systems development
and support.
For more information, or for copies of
this or other publications, contact the
Authority at (312) 793-8550, or visit
our Web site at www.icjia.state.il.us.
The evaluation was supported by grant #00-
DB-MU-0017 awarded by the Bureau of
Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs,
U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view in
this document do not necessarily represent the
official position or policies of the U.S.
Department of Justice.
Printed by authority of the State of Illinois,
August 2002. Printing order #03-043; 6,500
copies.
George H. Ryan
Governor
Peter B. Bensinger
Chairman
Candice M. Kane
Executive Director
ILLINOIS
CRIMINAL JUSTICE
INFORMATION AUTHORITY
The Center for Legal Studies at the
University of Illinois at Springfield
conducted an impact evaluation of
the intensive juvenile probation projects
in Peoria, Winnebago, and Christian
counties to determine how and to what
extent the three programs were affecting
their respective target populations. The
Authority supported development of
these specialized, intensive juvenile
probation programs with federal Anti-
Drug Abuse Act funds.
Program operation and
performance
Peoria County Anti-Gang and Drug
Abuse Unit
The Peoria County Anti-Gang and Drug
Abuse Unit (AGDAU) targeted juvenile
offenders placed on probation for known
gang-related behavior and/or substance
abuse offenses. The juveniles had
extensive criminal histories or were
adjudicated for serious criminal offenses.
Of the 119 juvenile participants evaluated
from the program’s inception in March
1998 through November 2000, 98 percent
had a history of substance abuse, 63
percent had a history of mental health
issues, and 56 percent endured unstable
home environments.
AGDAU addresses juvenile proba-tioner
treatment needs while controlling
behaviors through surveillance and
intensive supervision. The program
consists of many essential elements for
probation, including small caseloads,
distinct graduated phases to structure
movement through the program, sub-stance
abuse assessments, and behav-ioral
controls, such as electronic monitor-ing,
curfews, home confinement, and
random drug testing. In the program’s six-month
duration, AGDAU officers make
frequent contacts with program partici-pants,
their families, schools, and
treatment providers. Participants are seen
in their homes, schools, and communities.
The officers have the authority to impose
immediate consequences when observing
or substantiating any negative behaviors.
AGDAU participants are required to
submit to random substance use testing
by program officers and by their treat-ment
providers. On average, participants
were tested about once every two
months, with slightly more than 23
percent consistently testing negative
and about 30 percent testing positive on
the majority of the tests.
While about 65 percent of the
participants did not receive any technical
violations, 25 percent received two or
more. Also, nearly 60 percent of the
participants were not charged with a new
criminal offense while in the program, but
22 percent had two or more in-program
offenses. While most participants who
were charged with a new offense had
committed non-violent crimes, about 30
percent had committed at least one
offense against a person. More than 25