Week 6 HW

Week 6 HW

by Angeline -
Number of replies: 1

Policies that promote diversion from incarceration for juveniles are unlikely to be intended to be health policy, but could have a significant impact on justice-involved youth. These policies and programs emphasize alternatives to incarceration for non-violent offenders, and often involve intensive case management, resource-linkage, and family interventions.

An evaluation of these policies could help inform their implementation and downstream effects. They seem logical in theory, but anecdotally there are concerns that for some programs, violations can lead to incarceration for much lower-level offenses. On the other hand, if effective, these policies could also have an impact on school attendance, continuity in health care, and improved family dynamics.

I think this type of policy would have the greatest impact on low-income, minority youth, who are more likely to be come involved with the justice system and more likely to be sentenced to out-of-home placement compared to their white and higher-income counterparts. There are many outcomes that I think would be interesting. Some health-related outcomes could be mental health related (e.g. self-reported, or scales measuring depression, anxiety, stress, PTSD, or substance abuse) or simply attendance at visits with their primary care provider. I imagine we would need much longer term studies to evaluate changes in metabolic markers or other markers of chronic disease, since this would be a young cohort. Non-health related outcomes that I would also be interested in following would be completion of high school and involvement in the adult criminal justice system.

I wouldn’t feel comfortable randomizing youth to diversion or not, however I could imagine comparing cohorts from different states or cities—one with diversion policies in place and one without—and then following them prospectively. I would want to assess baseline characteristics, and then follow up maybe every 6 months or every year and have them complete questionnaires asking for the above outcomes. Because this isn’t randomized, it will be subject to a fair amount of bias, especially because whether or not a state/city has a diversion policy in place is likely an indicator of their other social policies, so it will be difficult to isolate the effect of this policy. 

In reply to Angeline

Re: Week 6 HW

by Maria Glymour -

Angeline

Your approach has promise if you can identify a city that implemented a diversion program and a comparison city that was similar beforehand but did not implement a diversion program.  Simple versions of this approach just have one or two comparison locations, but more recent innovations create "synthetic controls".  Synthetic controls look at the trend over time in a place that implemented a new program and compare that trend to infomation on a combination of places ('a synthetic control') that did not implement the new program.  The goal is to combine the controls in such a way that they mimic the pre-policy change trends of the place that implemented the diversion program. 

Kara Randolph recently had an approach like that to evaluate gun sales regulations, published in Am J Public Health, and Sanjay Basu a similar approach re the health effects of welfare reform, published in Am J Epi.  You might see if these designs could be useful.

Maria