Program Profile: Operation Night Light (ONL) (Midwest)

This is a home-visiting program for youth on probation who are considered at high risk of recidivism. The program is rated No Effects. Compared with the treatment group, the control group was more likely to have completed probation, less likely to have probation revoked due to a technical violation, and committed fewer new crimes during probation; however, they recidivated sooner. There were no differences in the probation revocations due to severity of a new crime.

A No Effects rating implies that implementing the program is unlikely to result in the intended outcome(s) and may result in a negative outcome(s).

Program Goals/Key Personnel/Program Activities

Operation Night Light (ONL) is a home-visiting program for youth on probation in a midsize city in the Midwest who are at high risk of recidivism. A probation officer and a police officer conduct the visits when the youth, a member of his or her immediate family, or both, are likely to be at home. Visits are typically between the hours of 6:30 p.m. and 10:30 p.m. The probation officer leads the conversation while the police officer is present only for security and safety purposes.

The program enforces a weekday curfew of 7:00 p.m. for middle school students and 8:00 pm for high school students, and a weekend curfew of 9:00 p.m. for middle school students and 11:00 p.m. for high school students. The curfew does not apply if the youth is accompanied by a parent or approved guardian.

Target Population/Eligibility

ONL is designed for youth on probation between the ages of 10 and 17 who have one or more of the following risk factors: 1) history of family violence, drug activity, or gang activity; 2) prior violent offense(s); 3) suspected gang affiliation; 4) friend or family of recent homicide victim; 5) friend or family of recent homicide perpetrator; 6) suspected drug use or involvement in drug sales while on probation; and 7) current warrant or violation of probation status. If the last two factors become relevant for youth on regular probation, the probation officer may elect to move that youth into ONL.

Additional Information: Negative Program Effects

Alarid and Rangel (2018) found statistically significant differences between groups, as follows: 1) juveniles on probation who participated in the ONL program were more likely to commit a new crime during probation and less likely to complete probation, compared with juveniles on regular probation; and 2) juveniles receiving regular probation recidivated sooner than ONL juveniles. However, there were no differences between the groups in the frequency of probation revocation due to the severity of the new crime committed.

Study

The quasi-experimental study by Alarid and Rangel (2018) focused on juveniles on probation who participated in Operation Night Light (ONL) in a midsize city in the Midwest. The total sample comprised 724 youth: there were 287 ONL probationers matched with a comparison group of 437 regular persons on probation. The comparison group was generated from a list of youth on regular probation who met ONL criteria and likely would have been assigned to ONL if the program had been available at the time. The treatment group received home visits from a probation officer and a police officer about once every other month, for an average of five visits total. The comparison group received no home visits. Both groups were required to attend probation office visits and adhere to treatment plans. None of the youth were under active supervision at the time of the study, but all were tracked for 24 months following the end of their probation.

The ONL group was 46.7 percent white or Hispanic, 53.3 percent African American, and 79 percent male. ONL youth were on probation for person/violence offenses (22.7 percent), property offenses (45.5 percent), drug possession (15.0 percent), and for other offenses (16.8 percent). Fifty percent were adjudicated for a felony offense, and 50 percent were adjudicated for a misdemeanor. On average, ONL youth were on probation for 11.3 months. The comparison group was 43.7 percent white or Hispanic and 56.3 percent African American, and 84.7 percent were male. Comparison youth were on probation for person/violence offenses (39.1 percent), property offenses (38 percent), drug possession (20.1 percent), and for other offenses (2.7 percent). Of this group, 74.6 percent were adjudicated for a felony offense, whereas 25.4 percent were adjudicated for a misdemeanor. On average, comparison youth were on probation for 10.4 months. In both groups, ages ranged from 10 to 18 years with an average of 15. Participants who were 18 at the time of data collection had been placed on probation prior to their 18th birthday.

Chi-square analyses were used to uncover any potential statistically significant differences between the two groups. The ONL group and comparison group were found to be similar in terms of sex, race, ethnicity, age, proportion of drug and nonviolent offenses, and length of time on probation. The only statistically significant difference between the two groups was the proportion of person/violent crimes. The comparison group had more person/violent offenses (39 percent) than the ONL group (23 percent). The comparison group also had a higher proportion of felony offenses (75 percent) than the ONL group (50 percent).

Official agency data for descriptive variables was obtained from juvenile probation case files (i.e., age, race, gender, current offense, offense severity). Administrative case files and probation records provided the data for number of home visits, type of home visits (no response, contact with the person on probation or collateral contact), whether a new crime was committed while on probation, disposition of the new crime, and type of discharge from probation supervision (successful completion, revocation for a new crime, or revocation for a technical violation). During the study, there were a total of 1,420 home visit attempts made to the ONL group, which resulted in an average of five visits per youth.

One outcome of interest was defined as successful or unsuccessful completion of probation. Successful completion of probation occurred when a youth was discharged from probation after serving the time. Unsuccessful completion was coded as revocation, which occurred when a youth was terminated or discharged prematurely from probation due to severity of a new crime. Severity was determined by whether the new offense was a misdemeanor or a felony. Those on probation who committed technical violations or a crime while on probation, but remained on supervision, were not considered discharged until probation ended. Discharge from probation was counted only once per youth. Outcome variables included prevalence of rearrest, type of crimes involved in the rearrest, and date of rearrest in relation to date of probation discharge.

Logistic regression models were run with both treatment and control groups together to determine which variables were significant predictors of probation completion and later rearrest. Survival analysis and Cox regression were used to analyze factors involved in a youth’s time to rearrest. The standard Cox regression analysis was used to examine the time until individuals in either group would recidivate after being discharged from probation.

Operation Night Light requires collaboration between probation officers and police officers. There are several ways to manage this partnership. Probation officers who normally work during the day may rotate one evening shift per week to conduct home visits. Some probation officers only work at night, visiting probationers as requested by their daytime probation officers. Other communities have implemented police-probation partnerships to reduce truancy in schools through communication with school resource officers (Alarid 2015; Matz and Kim 2013; Alarid, Sims, and Ruiz 2011)

Subgroup Analysis

Alarid and Rangel (2018) found that among both the treatment and control groups, the most important predictor of success was gender. Girls were 2.63 times more likely to complete probation than boys. In terms of race, white youth were 1.52 times more likely to complete probation than African American youth. There were no significant differences in probation completion based on age or the original offense for which they were convicted. The study authors found similar results when looking at length of time before individuals in either group would recidivate.

There were no significant differences between ONL and control groups in types of offenses committed for those rearrested for new crimes following probation supervision. About half committed a nonviolent property crime, slightly more than one third committed a violent/person crime, and the remainder were rearrested for drug-related crimes.

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

Following are CrimeSolutions-rated programs that are related to this practice:

Juvenile Curfew Laws

Juvenile curfew laws are designed to restrict juveniles (below ages 17 or 18) from public places during specific hours such as nighttime (e.g., between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m.) or during the school day (e.g., 8:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.). The primary purpose is to reduce juvenile crime and victimization by keeping them at home with their families or in school. This practice is rated No Effects for reducing juvenile crime during curfew hours.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types

Juvenile Intensive Supervision Programs

This practice consists of intensive supervision of juveniles on probation in the community, compared with those on traditional community supervision. Conditions of intensive supervision programs may vary, but they generally include increased face-to-face contact with probation officers, drug/urinalysis testing, and participation in programming (such as tutoring, counseling, or job training). The practice is rated No Effects for reducing recidivism.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types

Why might a practice's outcome ratings differ from the ratings of specific programs encompassed by that practice?