Examination of BARJ Services in Four Pennsylvania Counties

• NCJ Number: 242636
• Author(s): Dr. John H. Lemmon; Dr. Matthew D. Fetzer; Dr. Thomas L. Austin; Dr. Todd K. Whitman; John Cookus; Stephen P. Bishop; Susan Blackburn; Bryan D. Beegle; Nicholas J. Blasco; Matthew A. Fmura; Justin R. Getz; Jon T.A. Gist; Andrew S. Gladfelter
• Date Published: April 2012
• Length: 182 pages
• Grant Number(s): 20268
• Sponsoring Agency: Pennsylvania Cmssn on Crime and Delinquency; Office of Justice Programs (OJP)
• Corporate Author: Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania
• Sale Source: Pennsylvania Cmssn on Crime and Delinquency
• Publication Format: Document; Document (Online)
• Publication Type: Program/Project Evaluation
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This report presents the results, recommendations, and methodology of an evaluation of the implementation and impact of the BARJ (Balanced and Restorative Justice) model in four Pennsylvania counties.

Abstract

In 1995, Pennsylvania passed legislation that redefined the mission of the juvenile justice system in accordance with the BARJ model. This legislation is rooted in the philosophy of "restorative justice," which gives priority to repairing the harm done to crime victims and communities. Offender accountability is defined in terms of assuming responsibility and taking action to repair the harm done. At the foundation of this legislative mandate is the concept that crime victims and the community, as well as the juvenile offender, should receive balanced attention and gain tangible benefits from their interactions with Pennsylvania's juvenile justice system. Given the absence of any outcome-based studies of the impact of this legislation, in 2009 the Pennsylvania Juvenile Court Judges' Commission and the Pennsylvania Chief Juvenile Probation Officers' Council authorized the current evaluation of BARJ practices. In determining the characteristics of the at-risk youth who have received BARJ services, the evaluation found they were predominantly male, White, non-Hispanic, and from middle/upper income families. They did not have extensive delinquent histories. An analysis of the BARJ services received determined that many BARJ programs were not implemented consistently. This inconsistency was most evident in competency-development programs. This lack of consistency made it difficult to determine significant relationships between the programs and recidivism. Although BARJ services had short-term effects on recidivism, there was no significant effect after 24 months. Seven recommendations address future evaluation designs for BARJ, the examination of other BARJ services outcomes, the effects of BARJ services on specific delinquent typologies, and replication of the findings and analyses at other county probation sites. 42 tables and appended supplementary data