a comprehensive approach to improving juvenile justice...pretrial justice a comprehensive approach...
TRANSCRIPT
Pretrial Justice
A Comprehensive Approach to Improving Juvenile Justice
Stephanie Vetter, Senior Project Associate, PJI July 19, 2013 NACO 2013 Annual Conference
By the end of 2013, JDAI will be active in more than 200 counties, spanning 39 states plus the District of Columbia
NM
IL
NJ
OR
CA
ID
MD
GA
AZ
NV IN
DC
WA
MO
MN
MS
DE
TX AL
MT
IA
VA
FL
ME
OH
SD
NE WY
WI
KS
PA
TN
State site
County site
Model site
NH
RI MA NY
KY
HI
AR
LA
One in four young Americans lives in a community that participates in JDAI.
Annie E. Casey Foundation’s Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative
JDAI VISION Youth involved in the juvenile
justice system will have opportunities to develop into
healthy adults.
JDAI’s PURPOSE
To demonstrate that jurisdictions can establish more effective and efficient systems to accomplish
the purpose of juvenile detention.
• Eliminate inappropriate or unnecessary use of secure detention. • Minimize failures to appear and incidence of delinquent behavior. • Redirect public finances to successful reform strategies. • Improve conditions in secure detention. • Reduce racial, ethnic & gender disparities.
JDAI OBJECTIVES
40% OF JUVENILE COMMITMENTS AND DETENTIONS ARE DUE TO technical violations of probation, drug possession, low-level property offenses, public order offenses, and status offenses.
IN 2010, ONLY 1 OF
EVERY 4 confined youth was locked up for a violent crime index offense (homicide, aggravated assault, robbery, or sexual assault).
JDAI Core Strategy
JDAI Practices/Specific Reforms Progress/ Evidence/Results Key Cautions/Considerations
COLLABORATION
• JDAI Governance Structure – includes a policy Steering committee and Work groups
• MOU or resolution –formal authority given to the JDAI policy Steering Committee
• RED authority – explicit authority to reduce racial/ethnic disparities
• System Assessment – a documentation of JJS policies/practices related to the use of detention
• Purpose of Detention Statement -a new detention policy developed by the JDAI policy Collaborative
• Juvenile Advisory Council and Probation Orientation (Cook County)
• Parent Partners (Santa Cruz)
• After a clear understanding of system operations and baseline data, the JDAI governance structure develops policy, implements new practices and measures progress. Membership of the governance structure includes diverse representation from JJS agencies including advocacy, community and people of color. Members work collaboratively to make decisions on behalf of the entire system vs. individual agency.
• Collaboration w/o leadership • Who’s accountable • Non-traditional partners • Staffing the collaborative • Local Education/Immersion • Communication between
stakeholders • RED governance and leadership
USE OF DATA • Detention utilization study-a baseline study of detention
• Daily population sheets –daily accounting for the detention population
• 1/4ly reports (QRS) – routine reporting on detention, RAI and ATDs
• Annual results report –annual reporting on detention, dispositional and public safety data
• Detention utilization, RAI, ATD and public safety data is disaggregated by race/ethnicity/gender (R/E/G)
• Data is analyzed, supports the work plan and is the basis of local discussion
• Routine, Accurate, Timely Administrative reporting
• Use of data linked to local discussion, decisions and progress
• Distractors • Point-in-time vs. trends
JDAI Core Strategies and Best Practices
JDAI Fundamentals
JDAI Core Strategy
JDAI Practices and Specific Reforms Progress, Evidence, Results Key Cautions/Considerations
OBJECTIVE ADMISSIONS
DECISIONS
• Detention criteria –written detention criteria distributed to police, probation, schools
• Risk assessment instrument (RAI)-an objective tool that measures risk of flight and re-arrest
• 24/7 universal screening –consistent, objective screening is available at all times
• Call-in Center (if applicable for information needed for RAI scoring across state).
• Law Enforcement Criteria – guides police decision-making
• RAI is implemented and monitored • Secure admissions for low/med
risk youth decreases • RED decreases • FTA, Re-Arrest and Override rates
are monitored and within nationally accepted standards
• Many “doors” to detention • Quality assurance • Test RAI • Disaggregate RAI Overrides for
“reasons” by R/E/G • Support of law enforcement • Case processing connects use of
RAI to decision-making
ALTERNATIVES TO DETENTION (ATD) PROGRAMMING
• Home detention – ATD requiring youth to remain in the community, supervised by parents, guardians, JJ staff
• Day/evening reporting centers –ATD requiring youth to report to a center for supervision
• Shelter/foster care beds –ATD used to supervise youth who do not have a home to return to
• Reception Center –ATD used to screen and sort youth arrested by police
• Administered in partnership with or by community based organizations
• Continuum of ATDs linked to RAI • Case processing is aligned w/ATDs • ATDs are utilized (ADP) • ADP & RED in secure detention
decreases • FTA & Re-arrest rates
• Guard against net-widening • Expedited case processing times • Due Process in ATD Violation
practices • Racial Equity Lens informs ATDs • Community-based • Partner with parents
JDAI Core Strategies and Best Practices
JDAI Fundamentals
JDAI Core Strategy
JDAI Practices and Specific Reforms Progress, Evidence, Results Key Cautions/Considerations
EXPEDITED CASE PROCESSING
• “Speedy trial” laws & rules – local and/or state rules governing case processing
• Expediter- a person assigned to expedite cases through the JJS
• Weekly detention reviews- detention reviews for youth not released at the first detention hearing
• Immediate prosecutorial review for legal sufficiency & Early assignment of quality defense- when a youth is held in detention, immediate review of the case and assignment of counsel should occur
• Daily pre-detention hearing conferences (e.g., Placement Coordination meetings held to find least restrictive option for detained case)
• ATD-cases-processed-as-if-in-custody policy/court rule –ATD cases are processed at the same speed as in-custody cases
• Administrative process for use of structured sanctioning –case processing that supports “informal handling of violations”
• Disciplinary protocol (e.g., Clayton County model) • “Best interests” review hearings/process (e.g.,
Marion County, IN)
• Average length of stay (LOS) in secure detention decreases
• Distribution of LOS (offense and R/E/G)
• FTA and Re-arrest rates • RED reductions • New Case Processing
agreements/policies/rules
• Due process rights • Limits of ALOS as indicator • Resistance to change • System Mapping to identify targets • New case processing agreements
at each decision point
JDAI Core Strategies and Best Practices
JDAI Fundamentals
JDAI Core Strategy
JDAI Practices and Specific Reforms Progress, Evidence, Results Key Cautions/Considerations
“SPECIAL DETENTION”
CASES
• “Response” grids –a structured decision-making tool used to respond to violations of court orders
• Differentiated warrants –policy that allows for the release of some warrant cases
• Dispositional planning and alternative placements –expedited dispositional planning w/o detention
• Court (date/time/place) notification system –reminder calls for court dates
• Policies and practices support tools • Admissions, ADP, LOS, RED
reductions • FTA and Re-arrest rates • Commitments/placements are
reduced
• Quality assurance • Support of Probation • Intergovernmental coordination • Resistance to change
CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT
• JDAI facility standards –detention facility standards • Self-assessment process –an assessment of the
detention facility’s conditions by trained volunteers • Corrective action plan –the result of corrective
findings from the self-assessment process
• Facility self-inspection leads to measurable improvements and is completed as recommended
• Resistance to transparency • “Point-in-time” vs. process • Financial worries • Confidentiality
REDUCING RACIAL/ETHNIC
DISPARITIES (RED)
• JDAI Governance Alignment- RED reductions are operationalized by the entire JDAI governance structure, guided by clear goals and roles
• The “RED lens” – using the lens of racial/ethnic equity for every strategy and decision
• Community engagement –involvement of the communities most effected by the JJS
• RED “checklist and work plan”- written plan, goals and strategies for the reduction of RED
• RED is measured at every JJS decision point and informs discussion and decisions
• The JDAI governance and work plans reflect JDAI standards and clear goals to reduce RED
• Deeper analyses is occurring in target areas
• Policies and practices are implemented to “equalize the playing field” (TSSYS)
• Leadership and political will • Distractors • Silo the issue • Subjective tendencies • Structural racism • National and local research • Community engagement • Clear, measurable goals • Parental involvement • School referrals
JDAI Core Strategies and Best Practices
As of 2012, JDAI sites had reduced detention populations by 43%
ADP − 43%
-100%
-80%
-60%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
Mul
tnom
ah, O
RC
layt
on C
ount
y, G
AP
ima,
AZ
Was
hing
ton
Min
neso
taV
irgin
iaC
ook
Cou
nty,
ILV
entu
ra C
ount
y, C
AM
assa
chus
etts
New
Jer
sey
San
ta C
ruz,
CA
Cen
t. E
ast O
rego
n JJ
CW
asho
e C
ount
y, N
VD
elaw
are
Ala
bam
aM
isso
uri
Ada
Cou
nty,
IDC
lark
Cou
nty,
NV
Gra
nd T
otal
Ber
nalil
lo C
ount
y, N
MIn
dian
aIll
inoi
sH
arris
Cou
nty,
TX
San
Fra
ncis
co, C
AIo
wa
Dal
las,
TX
Haw
aii
Ohi
oLo
uisi
ana
Flor
ida
Neb
rask
aS
outh
Dak
ota
Wyo
min
gN
ew H
amps
hire
Ora
nge
Cou
nty,
CA
New
Mex
ico
Mon
tana
Bal
timor
e C
ity, M
DM
issi
ssip
pi
Change in Average Daily Population (ADP) by AECF Grantee/JDAI Sites
Baseline vs. 2012 N=38 grantees, comprising 112 sites
(Grantees shown in ascending order by percentage change in ADP)
As of 2012, commitments to state facilities have been reduced 43% across reporting JDAI sites
Commitments −43%
-100%
-80%
-60%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
San
ta C
ruz,
CA
Ven
tura
Cou
nty,
CA
Har
ris C
ount
y, T
XP
ima,
AZ
San
Fra
ncis
co, C
AO
rang
e C
ount
y, C
AD
alla
s, T
XIll
inoi
sM
issi
ssip
piW
asho
e C
ount
y, N
VN
ew J
erse
yM
ultn
omah
, OR
Was
hing
ton
Mas
sach
uset
tsA
laba
ma
Mon
tana
Virg
inia
Cla
yton
Cou
nty,
GA
Bal
timor
e C
ity, M
DO
hio
Gra
nd T
otal
Iow
aC
ook
Cou
nty,
ILS
outh
Dak
ota
Flor
ida
Haw
aii
Cla
rk C
ount
y, N
VM
isso
uri
Del
awar
eC
ent.
Eas
t Ore
gon
JJC
New
Ham
pshi
reM
inne
sota
Indi
ana
Ber
nalil
lo C
ount
y, N
MW
yom
ing
New
Mex
ico
Loui
sian
aN
ebra
ska
Ada
Cou
nty,
ID
Change in Commitments to State Custody by Grantee Baseline vs. 2012 N=38 grantees, comprising 112 sites
(Grantees shown in ascending order by percentage change in Commitments)
-42%
-17%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%JDAI Sites State Totals
Aggregate Percent Change in ADP Counts
Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative Sites and States: JDAI Sites Compared to Home State Totals
3
59
155
28,040 26,170
20,579
0
6,000
12,000
18,000
24,000
30,000
0
100
200
300
400
500
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Census of Detained Juveniles
Number of counties in JDAI
Expansion of JDAI vs. National Decrease in Detention 1997 - 2010
JDAI Counites CJRP count of detained youth
74% decrease in Average Daily Population
41.28 36.28
26.83
10.59 12.6 11.16 10.84
5.76
2009 2010 2011 2012Average Daily Population Average Length of Stay
74% decrease in Average Daily Population
In 2009,
Minnehaha County
was locking away
an average of 41
kids per day; with
JDAI programs in
place, that number
has dropped to
around 11 youth.
2009 Bed Days: 15070 Admissions: 1196
2012 Bed Days: 3879 Admissions: 485
Minnehaha County, Sioux Falls, SD
Reductions in detention and commitments have not hurt public safety: JDAI sites report reductions in all four juvenile crime indicators
24,985
64,247
40,517
73,474
13,629
36,530
27,065
52,014
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
Delinquency Petitions (12sites)
Felony Petitions (53 sites) Juvenile Arrests (24 sites) Juvenile Intake Cases (20sites)Baseline 2012
• 45% fewer Delinquency Petitions • 43% fewer Felony Petitions Filed
Aggregate Reductions in Juvenile Crime Indicators Baseline vs. 2012
N=109 sites
• 29% fewer Juvenile Intake Cases • 33% fewer Juvenile Arrests
