Report No. 2009-11
May 7, 2009

State of Oregon
Oregon Youth Authority:
Improvements Needed in
Availability and Reliability of
Critical Juvenile Justice
Information

Table of Contents
Page
Summary ............................................................................................................. 3 

Background ......................................................................................................... 5 

Audit Results ....................................................................................................... 9 

Recommendations............................................................................................... 14 

Objectives, Scope and Methodology .................................................................. 15 


1


2


Summary 

Oregon’s juvenile justice system depends on the work of the Oregon Youth Authority and
county juvenile departments to promote effectiveness, accountability, and transparency in the
juvenile justice system. To support the goals of the juvenile justice system, the Youth
Authority implemented an information system to help decision makers plan and evaluate
programs to reduce juvenile crime. We reviewed this information system and its use in four
Oregon counties. We found that, although the system captures useful information, publicly
available reports were limited and did not answer many important questions about the juvenile
justice system. Because this information is important for informing policy discussions, this
lack of publicly available reports is significant. In addition, although the majority of the data
we reviewed in the system was reliable, key data on offender requirements, such as restitution
and community service, was not consistently reliable. As a result, the Youth Authority, county
juvenile departments, and the public lack information useful to promote effectiveness,
accountability, and transparency in the juvenile justice system.
As part of our work, we answered a number of key questions from stakeholders in the juvenile
justice system. We present this information in four appendices, one for each of the counties
we reviewed–Marion, Polk, Tillamook, and Wasco.
We recommend that the Youth Authority:
•	 Continue efforts to develop and publish reports that provide useful information for

decision makers, managers, and the public to promote effectiveness, accountability,
and transparency in the juvenile justice system. Consider obtaining input from various
government and public stakeholders about what types of reports would be useful to
them.
•	 In consultation with partner agencies, take steps to ensure the juvenile justice data the

Youth Authority and county juvenile departments enter are consistent and reliable.
The Oregon Youth Authority generally concurs with the findings and generally agrees with
the recommendations. The agency’s response can be found beginning on page 14.

3


4


Background 

Oregon’s juvenile justice system depends on the work of the Youth Authority and county
juvenile departments to promote effectiveness, accountability, and transparency in the
juvenile justice system. The purposes of the juvenile justice system are to protect the public,
reduce juvenile delinquency, and provide fair and impartial procedures for the handling of
delinquent conduct. The system is also intended to be open and accountable to the people of
Oregon.

Government and Public Stakeholders are Interested in
Juvenile Justice Information
The Youth Authority, county juvenile departments, state agencies, federal agencies, and the
public are interested in juvenile justice information for various purposes. For example, the
Youth Authority uses juvenile justice information to provide comprehensive support for
managing individual juvenile offender cases and tracking juveniles through the juvenile
justice process. Counties use information for making decisions on resource allocation and
case management. The U.S. Department of Justice archives national juvenile court data to
promote access to data for conducting juvenile justice research and policymaking efforts.
Local public advocacy groups regard information as important for informing the public and
for evaluating juvenile justice programs, policies, and services.

Youth Authority Implemented a Statewide Juvenile Justice
Information System
The Youth Authority implemented a shared statewide electronic juvenile justice information
system designed to centrally track and provide information about youth in the juvenile justice
system across state, county, and local agencies. The information system helps decision makers
plan, develop, and evaluate programs to reduce juvenile crime. It also supports the common
needs of juvenile justice partner agencies.
The Youth Authority assigned project oversight for the information system to a steering
committee, which is a collaborative partnership comprised of representatives of the Youth
Authority, county juvenile departments, and external partners. The Youth Authority produces
annual statewide juvenile justice information reports through the Data and Evaluation
Advisory Committee, a steering committee subcommittee.

5


Background
Youth Authority and Counties Capture Juvenile Justice
Information
The Youth Authority and county juvenile departments are responsible for capturing juvenile
offender information. The Youth Authority enters information about youth committed to its
custody, and counties enter information throughout the county juvenile justice process. Key
county juvenile justice processes reflected in the information system are described below.
•	

Referrals are received by the juvenile department: A referral is any allegation or group of
allegations that are documented by a police report or other formal means. For the purposes
of our report, we classified allegations into three categories: non-criminal, misdemeanor,
and felony. Non-criminal offenses include status offenses, which are age-related offenses.
Non-criminal offenses also include local ordinance violations and traffic violations.
Misdemeanor and felony offenses are criminal offenses.

•	

The intake process leads to initial referral decisions: During intake, the juvenile
department or district attorney determines the initial handling of the referral
(e.g. dismissal, diversion, or referral to another agency).1 Alternatively, the county could
file a court petition or the youth could enter into a formal accountability agreement. A
formal accountability agreement is a voluntary contract between a youth and a juvenile
department whereby the youth agrees to fulfill specified conditions in exchange for not
having a petition filed.

•	

A petition starts the formal juvenile court process: A petition is an application for a court
order alleging a youth is within the jurisdiction of the court. If jurisdiction is established,
the court orders a formal disposition. There are various formal dispositions including
detention, probation, or commitment to a youth correctional facility. The court may also
dismiss the case.

•	

Offenders may be assigned conditions while under supervision: Conditions are
requirements, ordered or directed by the court, juvenile department, or Youth Authority.

1

For example, the youth could be referred to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

6


Background
Youth offenders must complete or observe conditions during time under supervision
(e.g. probation, formal accountability agreement, etc.). Types of conditions include
community service, restitution, and program intervention. A program intervention is an
action, activity, or treatment designed to change the youth’s behavior.

7


8


Audit Results 

We found that, although the juvenile justice information system captures useful information,
publicly available reports were limited and did not answer many important questions about the
juvenile justice system. Because this information is important for informing policy
discussions, this lack of publicly available reports is significant. Although the majority of the
data we reviewed in the system was reliable, key data on offender requirements was not
consistently reliable. As a result, the Youth Authority, county juvenile departments, and the
public lack useful information to promote effectiveness, accountability, and transparency in
the juvenile justice system.

Publicly Available Reports Have Increased, But Reported
Information Was Still Limited
In 2005, we audited the juvenile justice information system and found that information on data
variations and trends available in published reports was limited. Since 2005, the Youth
Authority has increased the number of publicly available reports, including publishing some
useful statewide, county, and trend reports. Currently the Youth Authority produces various
reports on recidivism, referrals, dispositions, detention, restitution, and community service.
Many of these reports organize the data by gender, age, and race/ethnicity. In addition, the
Youth Authority is planning to develop reports on services and programs, which include
treatment.
Although the Youth Authority increased the number of reports it makes available, reports were
still limited and did not answer many important questions about the juvenile justice system.
For example, our appendices in this report present information not currently available in a
published report. Additional types of information provided in the appendices include, but are
not limited to:
•

prior referral history;

•

elapsed time for key processes;

•

referral handling; and

•

program intervention information.

The four tables below are examples of information we present in the appendices that the Youth
Authority does not currently report. We chose one table for each of the four counties. Table I
presents prior referral history for Marion County youth with referrals that closed in 2006.

9


Audit Results
Table I: Number of Youth by Prior Referral Category Based on the
Most Recent Referral to Close during Calendar Year 2006
(Marion County Appendix Table 5)2
Prior Referral Category
No Prior Referrals
Prior Non-Criminal Referrals Only
Prior Criminal Referrals Only
Both Prior Criminal and Non-Criminal Referrals
Total

Number of Youth
1427
331
626
779
3163

Percent of Youth
45%
10%
20%
25%
100%

Table II shows the elapsed time from receipt of referral to referral closure for Wasco County
referrals that closed in 2006. The length of time a referral is open is based on actions taken by
the youths, juvenile department, district attorney, and courts. It includes the length of time a
youth is on probation. In some cases, referrals may be handled informally initially, but later
handled in court.
Table II: Distribution of Elapsed Time from Receipt of Referral to Referral Closure
(Wasco County Appendix Table 2) 3
Elapsed Time (Days)
Less than 30
30 – 59
60 – 89
90 – 179
180 – 364
365 – 730
More than 730
Total

Number of Referrals
173
28
28
57
60
42
34
422

Percent of
Referrals
41%
7%
7%
14%
14%
10%
8%
100%

Table III shows the number of referrals categorized by initial referral handling for Tillamook
County referrals that closed in 2006.

2
3

We based our prior referral analysis on the day referrals were received.
Table II excludes eight interstate compact referrals. Percentages may not sum to 100 percent due to
rounding.

10 


Audit Results
Table III: Number of Referrals Classified by Initial Referral Handling Category
(Tillamook County Appendix Table 14)4
Number of
Referrals
121
23
14
38
21
138
355

Initial Referral Handling Category
Dismissed
Consolidated
Referred to Another Agency
Other Diversion
Formal Accountability Agreement
Petition Filed
Total

Percent of
Referrals
34%
6%
4%
11%
6%
39%
100%

Table IV provides information about Polk County adjudicated referrals with ordered program
intervention conditions categorized by allegation type. It shows the percentage of referrals
with program interventions completely met, partially met, not met, and vacated or replaced.
Table IV: The Number of Referrals with Program Intervention Conditions Ordered and
the Percentage of Referrals by Completion Category Classified by Disposed Allegation Type
(Polk County Appendix Table 38c)

Disposed Allegation
Type
Non-Criminal
Misdemeanor
Total Felony
Felony Person
Felony Weapons
Felony Substance/
Alcohol
Felony Property
Felony Public Order
Felony Other
All Referrals w/ Program
Interventions

4

Number of
Referrals w/
Program
Interventions
Ordered
18
46
22
4
1

86

Percent of
Referrals w/
Program
Interventions
Completely
Met
78%
63%
55%
75%
100%

Percent of
Referrals w/
Program
Interventions
Partially Met
0%
28%
18%
0%
0%

Percent of
Referrals w/
Program
Interventions
Not Met
22%
9%
27%
25%
0%

Percent of
Referrals w/
Program
Interventions
Vacated or
Replaced
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%

4

75%

25%

0%

0%

11
1
1

27%
100%
100%

27%
0%
0%

45%
0%
0%

0%
0%
0%

64%

20%

16%

0%

This table excludes three interstate compact referrals. The consolidated category denotes referrals
that were dealt with through another charge or were handled as parole or probation violations.

11

Audit Results
Existing Information Could Answer Most Stakeholder
Questions
We determined that the juvenile justice information system captures useful information.
Specifically, we identified 46 questions based on input from stakeholders in the juvenile
justice system and found that information was generally available to answer these key
stakeholder questions. The parties we interviewed included the Office of the Governor, the
Juvenile Court Improvement Project, the Criminal Justice Commission, Crime Victims United
of Oregon, and the Juvenile Rights Project. We found that data was available to answer 44 of
these questions. We have presented the data for these 44 questions in the attached appendices.
We were not able to answer the following two stakeholder questions because partner agencies
did not track the start date for treatment conditions during the audit period:
•	

For referrals with treatment ordered as a condition of accountability agreements, what is
the distribution of elapsed time from the signing of an accountability agreement to the
treatment start date?

•	

For adjudicated referrals with treatment ordered as a condition, what is the distribution of
elapsed time from the disposition date to the treatment start date?

Treatment start date was not a required data element during our audit period. However, the
steering committee is in the process of implementing a new policy that requires counties to
begin tracking program and service data, including the start date of treatment. Tracking
program and service data is now required for programs and services funded by state basic
services funds and diversion funds.

Some Critical Information Was Not Consistently Reliable
Reliable condition data is important for providing consistent and comparable information that
can be used to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of specific practices designed to
change youth behavior and facilitate reparations to victims and the community. Using data that
is unreliable could lead to inaccurate conclusions or inappropriate comparisons, and could
impair effectiveness, accountability, and transparency in the juvenile justice system.
Although the majority of the data we reviewed in the system was reliable, we found that key
data on conditions (offender requirements) was not consistently reliable for the four counties
we reviewed. Specifically, we reviewed the accuracy of 31 data fields and determined that,
with the exception of three condition fields, the data was sufficiently reliable.5 At each county,

5

The three condition fields were Total Ordered, Total Complete, and Condition Status.

12 


Audit Results
we found that three condition fields either did not always agree with supporting documentation
or lacked supporting documentation necessary to verify condition data. We excluded condition
data that we determined to be unreliable from the appendices that follow.
In addition to testing data fields for accuracy, we tested the completeness of condition data. In
2005, we reviewed the information system and found that restitution, community service, and
treatment data were not consistently captured (Report No. 2005-21). Although we found
improvement in the completeness of condition data, we also found instances during the current
audit period in which condition data was not entered in the system. We also found that the
Youth Authority does not verify the entry of condition data and has few policies focused on
accuracy and completeness of data.
In addition, during our review of Youth Authority policy, we found that entering condition
data was not mandatory, with the exception of counties that volunteer to participate in annual
reporting of community service and restitution data. However, the entry of program and
service condition data for specific grant funds became mandatory in 2008.

13 


Recommendations
We recommend that the Youth Authority:
•	

Continue efforts to develop and publish reports that provide useful information for
decision makers, managers, and the public to promote effectiveness, accountability, and
transparency in the juvenile justice system. Consider obtaining input from various
government and public stakeholders about what types of reports would be useful to them.

•	

In consultation with partner agencies, take steps to ensure the juvenile justice data the
Youth Authority and county juvenile departments enter are consistent and reliable.

Agency’s Response:
The Oregon Youth Authority generally concurs with the findings in the audit and generally
agrees with the recommendations. Our comments include input from two of the four counties:
Recommendation: Continue efforts to develop and publish reports that provide useful
information for decision makers, managers, and the public to promote effectiveness,
accountability, and transparency in the juvenile justice system. Consider obtaining
input from various government and public stakeholders about what types of reports
would be useful to them.
The Oregon Youth Authority agrees with the recommendation and believes this is a worthy
goal to continue to strive towards. The agency already invests heavily in these efforts through
the ongoing work of the JJIS Steering Committee, JJIS Data and Evaluation, JJIS Reports
Committee, JJIS Policy and Standards, and the JJIS Implementation Coordinators. All these
committees are a partnership between the counties and OYA. OYA will develop a process in
which other stakeholders, who are not already part of the JJIS committees, can also
contribute valuable feedback.
Recommendation: In consultation with partner agencies, take steps to ensure the
juvenile justice data the Youth Authority and county juvenile departments enter are
consistent and reliable.
The Oregon Youth Authority agrees it is important to assure the data entered into JJIS are
consistent and reliable. The audit identified three data elements related to tracking conditions
(offender requirements) which were considered not consistently reliable. Since 2006, OYA
and the JJIS Steering Committee have taken steps to improve the consistency and reliability of
condition data through policy clarification, development of data entry procedures, and the
development of statewide and county specific information reports. OYA and the partner
agencies will continue to improve consistency by developing one or more audit reports to help
monitor the data elements found to be unreliable. The monitoring reports and associated
documentation on how to use the reports will be provided to each partner agency.

14 


Objectives, Scope and Methodology
We conducted this audit to meet the requirements of House Bill 3420, passed in 2007. The
bill directs the Secretary of State to audit the performance of at least four county juvenile
departments during each of the 2007-09 and 2009-11 biennia. This report, one of two that has
resulted from our work performed during the 2007-09 biennium, addresses juvenile justice
information. A prior report, which we released in December 2008, assessed whether County
Juvenile Departments expended basic services and diversion funds in accordance with
intergovernmental agreements (Report No. 2008-39).
The purpose of this audit was to determine whether reliable data was available and could be
used to answer key questions from stakeholders about the juvenile justice system at four
selected Oregon counties. We judgmentally selected Marion County, Polk County, Tillamook
County, and Wasco County to include in our review.
We interviewed local stakeholders in the juvenile justice system to identify key questions they
have about Oregon’s juvenile justice operations. The parties we interviewed included the
Office of the Governor, the Juvenile Court Improvement Project, the Criminal Justice
Commission, Crime Victims United of Oregon, and the Juvenile Rights Project.
We used data we obtained from the juvenile justice information system as the basis for
answering the stakeholder questions. For each selected county, we obtained queries from the
Youth Authority. Our cohort population for each county was limited to youth with referrals
that were within the counties’ jurisdiction and that closed in calendar year 2006. We chose
closed referrals so that we could present information that tracked a referral through the
system. We excluded expunged and dependency referral records.
We chose to use referrals as the primary reporting unit for our analysis, based on input
stakeholders provided. This is consistent with federal reporting of juvenile justice
information. However, readers should exercise care when interpreting the information, as it
may not account for all of the allegations within a referral, all of the referrals combined within
a single disposition, or other aspects of a youth’s referral or disposition history.
In order to gain a better understanding of the juvenile justice system and the information
system, we obtained and reviewed Youth Authority policies and procedures, interviewed
Youth Authority officials and staff, and interviewed county juvenile department directors and
staff. We reviewed Youth Authority reports published online, the information system record
layout and data dictionary, policies and procedures, and steering committee and subcommittee
meeting minutes.
We developed and tested methodologies to extract, manipulate, and analyze the available data
to answer the stakeholder questions. We present the answers to these questions in four
appendices, one for each county we included in the audit–Marion, Polk, Tillamook, and
Wasco. We shared our results with county staff, who generally agreed with the information
and saw value in the expanded reporting of juvenile justice information.

15 


Objectives, Scope and Methodology
We conducted data reliability testing at each of the four counties we reviewed. We tested the
accuracy of 31 data fields by comparing electronic data to supporting documentation on file at
the counties. We also tested the completeness of condition data by comparing the electronic
data to ordered conditions listed on court orders and formal accountability agreements. We
determined the data, with the exception of three condition fields, was sufficiently reliable for
our audit purposes. The reliability of the three condition fields was not consistent between
counties and varied depending on the condition type and the associated disposition type.
We reviewed prior audit reports and followed up on findings related to our audit objective.
We conducted this audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.

16 


A BOUT THE S ECRETARY OF S TATE A UDITS D IVISION
The Oregon Constitution provides that the Secretary of State shall be, by virtue of her office,
Auditor of Public Accounts. The Audits Division exists to carry out this duty. The division
reports to the elected Secretary of State and is independent of the Executive, Legislative, and
Judicial branches of Oregon government. The division audits all state officers, agencies,
boards, and commissions and oversees audits and financial reporting for local governments.

Directory of Key Officials
Interim Director
Deputy Director
Deputy Director

Drummond Kahn, MS, CIA, CGFM, CGAP 

William K. Garber, MPA, CGFM 

Mary E. Wenger, CPA 


Audit Team
James E. Scott, MM, CIA, Audit Manager 

Rex Kappler, MBA, CMA, CFM, Principal Auditor 

Alexandra D. Fercak, MPA, Senior Auditor 

Shanda L. Miller, MPA, Senior Auditor 

Olivia Ngiraikelau, MPA, Associate Auditor 

Ramona J. Mitchell, MPA, Staff Auditor 

Sarah F. Salisbury, Staff Auditor 

Weston R. Brinkley, Staff Auditor 


This report, a public record, is intended to promote the best possible management of public
resources. Copies may be obtained from:
internet: 	 http://www.sos.state.or.us/audits/index.html
phone:

5	 03-986-2255

mail: 	

Oregon Audits Division

255 Capitol Street NE, Suite 500 

Salem, OR 97310 


The courtesies and cooperation extended by officials and employees of the Oregon Youth
Authority and County Juvenile Departments during the course of this audit were
commendable and sincerely appreciated.

Auditing to Protect the Public Interest and Improve Oregon Government