Designing an Effective Response: System Accountability

• NCJ Number: 185968
• Author(s): Ruth Massinga; Diane Telling-Rodriguez; David Sanders; Mary Murphy
• Date Published: 1999
• Length: 2 pages
• Sponsoring Agency: Regents of the University of Minnesota
• Sale Source: Regents of the University of Minnesota
• Publication Format: Document
• Publication Type: Conference Material
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: Proceedings of workshop, “Delinquents Under 10 -- Targeting the Young Offender,” September 30-October 2, 1999; for other proceedings, see NCJ-185959.

Annotation

This summary of a workshop panel discussion on system accountability for an effective response to very young juvenile offenders addresses the management of prevention programs, the length and degree of intervention, and funding issues.

Abstract

Two panelists emphasize the importance of a multidisciplinary approach to the management of prevention and early intervention programs that sets a high premium on effective and systematic communication among the various agencies involved in assessment and treatment. One panelist recommends that intervention programs consist of a continuum of care and that the length and level of intervention be calibrated along this continuum. Another panelist notes that the public and policymakers currently tend to favor shorter turnaround times, quick decision making, and early permanency planning. Further, program effectiveness depends on funding stability. For this reason, prevention programs tend to depend on funding streams, such as property tax revenues, over which the child welfare agencies have the greatest control; however, relying on local governments to place a high priority on funding prevention programs can be problematic, because their other public safety and welfare responsibilities often are given higher priority. The panelists agree that State legislatures must be educated about their responsibility to contribute to the funding of local prevention programs. One panelist notes that the current State budgeting process tends to favor established programs and State agency initiatives. Where possible, cost-benefit analyses distinguish between local and State-level benefits in order to make it clear that funding prevention and early intervention will result in benefits to both levels of government. Audience questions and discussion are summarized.