improving outcomes for youth in colorado€¦ · • the goal of the assessment is to identify key...

Improving Outcomes for Youth in Colorado

Second Presentation to Task Force: Assessment Findings July 23, 2018

CSG Justice Center Presenters:

Nancy Arrigona, Research

Shanelle Johnson, Juvenile Justice

Nina Salomon, Juvenile Justice

About The Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center

Council of State Governments Justice Center | 2

National nonprofit, nonpartisan, membership

association of state government officials that

engages members of all three branches of

state government

Provides practical, nonpartisan research-driven

strategies and tools to increase public safety

and strengthen communities

About the National Reentry Resource Center


• Authorized by the passage of the Second Chance Act in April 2008

• Launched by The Council of State Governments (CSG)

Justice Center in October 2009 • Administered in partnership with the U.S. Department of

Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Colorado has a history of state leaders being committed to improving outcomes for youth in the juvenile justice system.


Improving conditions of confinement in Department of Youth

Services facilities

Expansion of the Collaborative Management Program to provide funding or youth and families involved with multiple agencies

Adoption and implementation of SB94 and reduction of detention bed admissions

History of collaboration through the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Council and the Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition

Commitment to transparency and improvement

Governor Hickenlooper launched IOYouth in May in partnership with Representative Lee, Justice Boatright, Senator Gardner, and Director Bicha.


A statewide task force oversees IOYouth to determine what steps can be taken to strengthen public safety and improve outcomes for youth.


Senator Bob Gardner, Cochair Colorado General Assembly Rep. Pete Lee, Cochair Colorado General Assembly Reggie Bicha Colorado Department of Human Services Justice Brian Boatright Supreme Court of Colorado Stacie Nelson Colling Office of the Alternate Defense Council Jeff Cuneo Colorado Juvenile Defender Center Sheri Danz Office of the Child Representative Julie DeNicola Stepping Stones Advocacy Hon. Leslie J. Gerbracht 3rd Judicial District Court Rebecca Gleason 18th Judicial District Arnold Hanuman Colorado District Attorney’s Council

Will Hays Hilltop Community Resources, JJDPC Emily Humphrey 8th Judicial District Anders Jacobson Division of Youth Services Bill Kilpatrick City of Golden Police Department Elizabeth (Elise) Logemann Colorado Bar Association Rep. Paul Lundeen Colorado General Assembly Daniel Makelky Douglas County Department of Human Services Hon. Ann Gail Meinster 1st Judicial District Court Lanie Meyers-Mireles Prowers County Department of Human Services Rep. Dafna Michaelson- Jenet Colorado General Assembly

Jenifer Morgen 17th Judicial District Barrie Newberger-King Office of the Colorado State Public Defender Mike O’Rourke 11th Judicial District Chris Ryan Colorado Judicial Branch Lindsey Sandoval Office of the Colorado State Public Defender Rebecca Wallace ACLU of Colorado Meg Williams Office of Adult and Juvenile Justice Assistance & Juvenile Parole Board Adam Zarrin Office of Governor John Hickenlooper

01 IOYouth Assessment Process

02 Assessment Results

03 Next Steps

Today’s presentation focuses on the front end of Colorado’s juvenile justice system.


Diversion

Detention and SB94

Case-level and survey data from multiple sources inform the assessment results presented today.


Data Source

Arrest Data Department of Public Safety, Division of

Criminal Justice Colorado Bureau of Investigation

SB94 Screening and Services Data Colorado Department of Human

Services, Division of Youth Services

Detention and Detention Screen Data Colorado Department of Human


DYS Budget and Expenditure Data Colorado Department of Human


Survey Data (Diversion) District Attorneys/ Diversion Directors

Notes about the System Assessment Results


1. Based on data available through the Department of Public Safety, Division of Criminal Justice, and the Department of Health Services, Division of Youth Services

2. Data includes information on:

• Youth referred to and provided services through SB94 • Youth screened for detention • Youth admitted to and released from detention • Appropriations and expenditures for SB94 and DYS detention

• Details findings from:

• FY2013 to FY2017 for juvenile detention screens and youth detained • FY2015 to FY2017 for juveniles receiving SB94 services • 2012 to 2016 for juvenile arrests

Since the last IOYouth Task Force meeting in May, CSG Justice Center staff have spoken with a wide array of stakeholders.


State and Local Agencies

• DYS Leadership and Staff

• Client Managers

• County DHS Leadership

• Department of Corrections Leadership

• Diversion Directors • SB94 Coordinators • Colorado Child Protection

Ombudsman • Colorado Public Education

Department

Court System • Juvenile Court Judges/Magistrates • District Attorneys • Public Defenders • Juvenile Probation • Probation Youth and Families

DYS Facilities • Lookout Mountain YSC Leadership and

Staff • Platte Valley YSC Leadership and Staff • J. Paul Taylor Center Supervisors and Staff • Grand Mesa YSC Leadership and Staff • Zebulon Pike YSC Leadership and Staff • Mount View YSC Leadership and Staff • Adams YSC Leadership • Gilliam YSC Leadership • Facility Youth and Families

Other Stakeholders • Law Enforcement • Colorado Municipal League • Community and Residential-based

Providers

The CSG Justice Center staff have gathered feedback from stakeholders across the state to ensure a diversity of perspectives.


Since February 2018…

• 4 Site visits – 1 to each DYS region

• Calls and meetings with more than 100 individuals

• 6 Facility Visits

The following goals and context help guide the IOYouth assessment in Colorado:

• The goal of the assessment is to identify key barriers to improving outcomes for youth and advance policy, funding, and practice changes to address these barriers.

• The assessment shows what is happening in Colorado’s juvenile justice system and whether policies and practices are aligned with what research shows works to improve outcomes for youth.

• Most, if not all, juvenile justice systems struggle to prevent youth from reoffending.

• Every state with which the CSG Justice Center has partnered struggles to match youth with the appropriate level, type, and quality of supervision and services.

• The CSG Justice Center commends state and local agencies for their transparency, willingness to have their challenges publically reviewed and discussed, and their commitment to improvement.



02 Assessment Results • Diversion

• Who is getting arrested? • Who is getting diverted? • What happens to youh on diversion?

• Detention

Next Steps 03


What does the research say about Diversion?

Court involvement for low-risk youth often does more harm than good and takes

limited resources away from focusing interventions on youth who are a threat to

public safety.

Most low risk youth, without court involvement, grow out of their behavior and stop

reoffending without system intervention.

Diversion is a more cost effective public safety strategy than court processing for low

risk youth.

Youth’s current offenses are a poor predictor of a youth’s risk to reoffend.

Restorative justice practices are an effective way to hold youth accountable for

repairing the harm caused to victims and communities and can reduce reoffending

and increase victim’s satisfaction with the justice system.


DIVERSION ASSESSMENT FINDINGS

Who is Getting Arrested?

Juvenile arrests have declined 18 percent between 2012 and 2016, with arrests for violent offenses increasing slightly.

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016


11% 11%

24% 24%

7%

10%

25% 23%

33% 33%

2012 2016

Drug Property Violent Status Other

Juvenile Arrests, 2012 t0 2016 Juvenile Arrests by Type, 2012 to 2016

Black youth make up a small proportion of juvenile arrests but are almost three times more likely to be arrested than White youth.


Juvenile Age Population and Juvenile Arrests by Race/Ethnicity, 2016

56%

31%

7% 6%

50%

31%

17%

2%

White Hispanic Black Other

Juv Pop Juv Arrest

39.6 43.9

111.2

12.7

White Hispanic Black Other

Juvenile Arrest Rates per 1,000 by Race/Ethnicity, 2016

Youth arrested or served a summons may be directed to municipal or district court, depending on offense, and may be diverted pre- or post-filing of their case.


Cas

e N

ot

File

d

Case Sentenced

Juvenile Court Case Filed

Juvenile Arrests / Summons

Cas

e D

ism

isse

d

Possible Diversion Cases

Juvenile to Municipal Court

Juvenile to District Court

Cas

e D

iver

ted



Who is Getting Diverted?

Colorado lacks a centralized approach to to tracking diversion participation, services, and outcomes. There is no statewide data system or entity

responsible for collecting, tracking, or

evaluating diversion data

There is no comprehensive picture of how

many youth get diverted statewide, who

gets diverted, and diversion outcomes

The Department of Criminal Justice (DCJ)

collects data on diversion programs funded

through the DCJ grant, however, this

represents only a subset of youth that are

diverted


From DCJ FY2016-2017 Evaluation

• 19 grant awards • 1350 youth began diversion • More than 50% were for

misdemeanor offenses • More than 2/3 were result of

property, theft or drug charges • Majority male, White, or

Hispanic

The CSG Justice Center conducted a survey of all judicial districts to better understand diversion programs across the state.


Survey sent to all 22 judicial districts to district attorneys and diversion

directors in Colorado

Survey Questions

Structure and oversight

Eligibility criteria

Programming and services

Funding sources

Data collection

21 responses

According to the survey, at least 2800

youth started diversion in FY2017, more

than double the number in the DCJ

evaluation.

District attorney offices administer the majority of juvenile diversion, with most jurisdictions offering diversion pre- and post-filing.

15

8

3 2

DAs Office Non-Profit Law Enforcement Municipality


In six JDs, multiple entities oversee diversion programs. Three JDs do not administer

juvenile diversion programs due to a lack of resources or too few kids eligible.

Pre File 1[VALUE].5

%

Pre and Post File

75%

Post File 12.5%

Pre Pre and Post Post

A variety of funding sources are used to support juvenile diversion programs.


5

4

7

6

11

12

Other

SB94

Marijuana Funds

County (non DA)

DCJ

DAs Office

12 judicial districts use multiple funding sources to fund diversion programs in their

jurisdictions. In three judicial districts, juvenile diversion is funded solely by the

district attorney’s office.

Eligibility criteria for diversion varies significantly across the state.


Broad statutory authority is provided to judicial districts to determine eligibility criteria for diversion

Districts do not see a lot of diversion failures as most diversion youth are first time low level offenders

Family support and stability is often a factor in determining youth eligibility, and some districts require families to pay for participation in diversion

Cases are often times formally filed in order to get other services for youth, like psychiatric evaluations, and JDs can always divert later

]Youth identified or perceived to have higher needs are often not diverted because of limited resources for services

Judicial districts report using a variety of factors to determine a youth’s eligibility for diversion.


6

3

8

12

10

14

15

Other

Ability to Pay

Family Support

Service Need

Risk to Reoffend

Prior Offenses

Current Offense

Other refers to victim input and youths’ amenability to treatment.



What Happens to Youth on Diversion?

Diverted youth are usually supervised by a case manager or diversion officer, and average 6 months or more on supervision in nearly half of districts.

2

3

6

2

4

0 1 2 3 4+


Average Number of Monthly Contacts

with a Case Manager

2

6

9

9 Months - 1 Year

6-9 Months

3-6 Months

Average LOS on Diversion

In most districts, diverted youth are required to participate in services and programming.


3

14

0 0

Can Youth be Diverted Completely Without Supervision/Services?

Yes No

Judicial districts report a variety of

programming and services available

to youth on diversion, including

education, restorative justice,

restitution, community service, and

treatment.

Services are often paid for by

youth and families directly or

through insurance, in addition to

some funds used by the DA’s

offices and grant programs.

Diversion: Key Assessment Findings


1

2

3

Overall juvenile arrests are declining, however local discretion in arrest and referrals to court can lead to inconsistencies further in the juvenile justice system.

The structure and implementation of juvenile diversion varies significantly across jurisdictions in Colorado, resulting in inconsistent adherence to best practice and limited data on performance.

Youth who are diverted from formal court involvement still receive substantial system supervision and services.


Best Practices in Juvenile Diversion

Divert lower risk youth from system involvement; provide minimal or no supervision

for these youth; and focus limited resources on supervision/services for youth with a

high risk of reoffending.

Use risk screening tools to objectively identify low risk youth that are appropriate for

diversion.

Establish clear criteria to identify youth that should be eligible for and/or automatically

participate in diversion programs.

Use needs screening tools to identify youth with potential mental health and

substance use needs to match youth with appropriate services.

Collect data on diversion program participation and quality to evaluate performance.

Best Practices in Juvenile Diversion


02 Assessment Results • Diversion • Detention

• Who is getting detained? • How long are youth staying in detention? • Are youth in detention/alternatives getting needed services?

Next Steps 03


What does the research say about detention?

Research demonstrates that detention can have a negative impact on young people’s

mental and physical well-being, and when used inappropriately, detention may make it

more likely that youth will reoffend.

Youth who are detained are more likely to penetrate deeper into the juvenile justice

system than similar youth who are not detained.

Detention alternatives should be based on the principle of using the least restrictive

setting possible and on identifying and addressing youth’s needs as identified from

validated screening tools.


DETENTION ASSESSMENT FINDINGS

Who is Getting Detained?

Between 2013 and 2017, detention admissions declined by 18 percent while the juvenile age population increased 5 percent.

Juvenile Age Population and Detention Admissions FY2013 to FY2017

520000

530000

540000

550000

560000

570000

580000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17

Detention Admits Juvenile Age Pop

13.5

10.5

FY13 FY17

Detention Rate per 1,000 Juveniles in Population FY2013 and FY2017

Males represent 2/3 of new detention admissions, and minority youth comprise more than 60 percent of new detention admissions.

75%

25%

Male Female


40%

19%

38%

3%

White Black Hispanic Other

3%

19%

50%

29%

10-12 13-14

15-16 17+

Admissions by Gender, FY2017

44%

26%

23%

29%

Central Northeast Southern Western

Admissions by Region, FY2017 Admissions by Age, FY2017

Admissions by Race/Ethnicity, FY2017

Discretion in judicial district policies can lead to the placement of youth in secure detention that are not a public safety risk.


The JDSAG is used statewide to screen youth for detention eligibility;

however, screening policies and override guidelines are most often

determined by the chief judge.

In most judicial districts, youth with warrants are automatically detained

regardless of public safety risk or risk of reoffense.

Some magistrates report not always getting all of the information that they

need in order to make detention decisions.

The lack of collaboration in some districts across youth serving agencies can

lead to more youth being placed in secure detention.

More than 2/3 of youth screened on the JDSAG receive a mandatory hold to secure detention, but more than half are not identified as a public safety risk.

68% 32%


Of youth screened in FY2017 with

a Mandatory Hold:

• 52% were NOT considered a public safety risk

• 45% had committed a misdemeanor or lesser offense

• 34% were low risk

• 68% had a responsible adult to provide supervision if released

Reason for Mandatory Hold, FY2017

80%

16%

4%

Warrant Only

Offense Only Combination

Percent of Screens Resulting in a Mandatory Hold, FY2017

No Hold Mandatory Hold

Almost half of detention admissions are the result of a violation, the majority of which are for a failure to comply.

39% 45%

49% 49%

11% 5%

FY13 FY17 Offense Violation Sanction


Detention Admissions by Detention Reason*, FY2013 and FY2017

*”other” detention reason accounted for 1% of in both FY13 and FY17, missing not included

Failure to Comply: 66%

Failure to Appear: 23%

Probation Technical Violation: 11%

Truancy VCO: <1%

Type of Violation, FY2017


JDSAG Screen Results Compared to Actual Level Received, FY2017

Actual Level Received

Screen Level Secure

Detention Staff Secure

Residential or Shelter

Home Detention/

Services Release Total

Detention 93% 1% >1% 2% 3% 100% (5,755)

Staff Secure 91% 4% 2% 2% 1% 100% (265)

Residential 38% 2% 1% 30% 29% 100% (187)

Home Detention 34% 1% 1% 38% 26% 100% (833)

Release 23% 0% 0% 33% 44% 100% (228)

More than 1/3 of youth who screen to a level below secure detention on the JDSAG still end up in secure detention.

Detention rates vary by judicial district, from a high of 17.4 per 1,000 youth to a low of 2.2.


10.5

8.5

16.0

6.5

14.7

8.4

7.0

8.9

17.3

2.2

8.4

8.1

17.1

17.4

5.9

9.2

6.5

8.1

2.8

10.5

15.2

16.6

12.9

0 5 10 15 20

Total State

22

21

20

19

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

Judicial

District

Rate of Detention (per 1,000 youth) by Judicial

District, FY2017

Less than 8 per 1,000

8 – 11 per 1,000 More than 11

per 1,000

Females are more likely to be detained for a violation and for a misdemeanor or petty/status offense than males.

47%

38%

46%

55%

6% 5%

Male Female

Offense Violation Sanction


41%

30%

27%

34%

4%

8%

Male Female

Felony Misdemeanor Petty/Status

Detention Reason by Gender, FY2017 Offense Level by Gender, FY2017

Black youth are more likely to be arrested via warrant or on-view, and White youth are more likely to be arrested through a summons, which can lead to differences in detention rates.


Percent Resulting in On-View Arrest by Offense Type and Race/Ethnicity, 2016

White Hispanic Black

Custody/Warrant 19% 26% 35%

On-View 19% 25% 33%

Summons 62% 49% 32%

Total 100% 100% 100%

Juvenile Arrests by Type and Race/Ethnicity, 2016

53%

56%

38%

38%

43%

26%

40%

25%

13%

Violent

Property

Drug


Black youth were more than 4 times as likely to be detained, and Hispanic youth almost twice as likely, as White youth.


30.4

28.4

13.6

7.6

7.6

7.5

Urban FY17

Rural FY17


9.4

37.9

17.8

7.6

30.4

12.9

White Black Hispanic

FY13 FY17

Statewide Detention Rates per 1,000 by Race/Ethnicity, FY2013 and FY2017

Detention Rates per 1,000 by Rural/Urban by Race/Ethnicity, FY2017

Detention rates vary for minority youth across judicial districts.


Less than 8 per 1,000

8 – 11 per 1,000 More than 11

per 1,000

Rate of Detention (per 1,000 youth) by Judicial District and Race, FY2017

WHITE HISPANIC AFRICAN-AMERICAN

The average cost per detention bed per day increased 40 percent between FY2013 and FY2017, primarily due to increases in direct care staff and declines in youth detained.

$204.50

$286.58

FY13 FY17


ADP: 308 ADP: 257

Average Cost per Bed per Day for Detention, FY2013 and FY2017

$286.58

$407.96

Cost per Bed Cost per Youth

ADP: 257 ADP: 366

Average Cost per Bed and per Youth for Detention, FY2013 and FY2017



How long are youth staying in detention?

Overall lengths of stay in detention has remained the same, with detentions resulting from offenses/violations decreasing slightly.


16.0

15.7

17.2

15.6

9.2

11.6

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017

Offense

Violation

Sanction

Average Length of Stay (days) in Detention by Detention Reason,

FY2013 – FY2017

Average LOS in Detention

FY2013: 15.1 days

FY2017: 15.3 days

Detention lengths of stay vary by judicial district, from a low of 7.3 days to a high of 25.9 days.


10.1

15.1

10.5

13.1

14.3

15.5

11.2

25.9

9.5

11.7

15.7

7.3

13.0

16.3

12.9

17.9

15.7

14.8

18.4

8.4

17.0

12.1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

22

21

20

19

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

Judicial

District

Average Length of Stay (days) in Detention by

Judicial District, FY2017

Less than 10 days 10 – 14 days More than 14 days

The length of stay in detention for males is longer than females on average for the same offense type.


16.0

13.1

All offenses

Male Female

Average Length of Stay (days) in

Detention by Gender, FY2017

15.7

18.6

17.4

21.7

10.8

13.2 Male

Female

LOS for Petty Offenses

LOS for Violent Felony Offenses

LOS for Felony Offenses

Male

Female

Male

Female

The length of stay in detention for Black youth is longer than White youth on average for the same offense type, particularly felonies.


14.4 15.1

17.5

All offenses


Average Length of Stay (days) in

Detention by Race/Ethnicity, FY2017

20

17.7

17

24.1

20.9

17.8

9.1

10.9

10.7 White

Black

LOS for Petty Offenses

LOS for Violent Felony Offenses

LOS for Felony Offenses

White

Black

White

Black

Hispanic

Hispanic

Hispanic

Youth undergoing DHS placement evaluation or awaiting DHS placement on average remain in detention longer than other youth.


27.8

15.3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Awaiting DHS Action Not Awaiting DHS Action

Average Length of Stay (days) in Detention for Youth

Awaiting a DHS Action, FY2017

Source: DYC detention youth awaiting placement evaluation or placement

decision, June 2017.

In FY2017, 19% of youth

released from state-

operated detention

facilities were involved

with DHS, awaiting an

evaluation or placement

prior to release.



Are youth in detention/alternatives getting

needed services?

Many jurisdictions cite a lack sufficient alternatives to detention in the community, which results in inappropriate placements.

Many judicial districts report a lack of less secure alternatives to detention,

including the use of shelters beds, residential placements, foster care, etc.

Youth with significant mental health needs, low cognitive abilities, and other

more intensive needs often end up in detention due to a lack of alternative

placements.

Youth who fail out of DHS placements often penetrate into the detention

system.

SB94 is often used by jurisdictions to also assess and provide services to

youth that are on probation, committed, or diverted, stretching resources.

Youth are often detained to receive assessments/evaluations and to

coordinate service delivery at release


Youth that are diverted, committed, or that receive violations are often referred to SB94 for assessment, however in half of these cases services are found not to be needed by youth.


51% 50%

42%

17% 15% 10%

Co

mm

itte

d

Div

ersi

on

VC

O

Sen

ten

ced

Pre

adju

dic

ated

Mu

nic

ipal

% of SB94 Cases Found Not in Need of Services by Legal Status, FY2017

56.79

11.16

SB94 Case

Did Not Need Services All Other Outcomes

SB94 Case LOS (days) by Outcome, FY2017

In FY2017, less than half of SB94 resources allocated by DYS provided direct services to youth.


8247 7742

7520

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

$10.0

$10.5

$11.0

$11.5

$12.0

$12.5

$13.0

FY15 FY16 FY17

Mill

ion

s

Cases Started Budget

FY 2015

$1,476

FY 2017

$1,647

Average Cost per SB94 Case Started, FY15 and FY17

SB94 Allocation and Cases Started, FY2015 and FY2017

34% 27% 22% 8% 9%

Direct Support Supervision Assessment Treatment / Restorative Plan Admin

SB94 Allocation by Service Type, FY17

Client assessment/evaluation is the most frequent type of service provided to youth through SB94.


SB94 Services by Type, FY2017 47%

31%

16%

4% 2% 1%

Ass

essm

ent/

Eval

uat

ion

Dir

ect

Sup

po

rt

Sup

ervi

sio

n

Trea

tmen

t

Res

tora

tive

Ser

vice

s

Serv

ice

Ref

erra

l

22% of SB94 cases are for

assessments/evaluations only,

and do not involve any services

Assessment/evaluation can

include medical, mental health,

substance use, CJRA pre-screen

and/or full assessment, JDSAG,

psychological, among others.

Jurisdictions lack protocols to ensure that youth served through SB94 have their needs accurately identified and met.

23% 21%

Substance Use Screening or Monitoring

No Need Need

SB94 Cases by Identified Substance Use Need, FY2017

69% 76%

Direct Support Services

No Need Need

33% 28%

Supervision

No Need Need

Youth with identified substance use needs

received the same level of SB94 services as youth without an identified

need.

At least one-third of youth detained in FY2017 were identified as having substance use, mental health, or trauma related needs.


30%

28%

FY13 FY17

History of Abuse /Neglect

34%

41%

FY13 FY17

Disruptive Substance

Use

Needs* of Detention Admissions, FY2013 and FY2017

History of Abuse/Neglect

Disruptive Substance Use

63% 61%

37% 39%

FY13 FY17

No MH Need MH Need

Mental Health Need

* As identified by the CJRA Screen

43%

39%

49%

26%

33%

36%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Abuse/Neglect

SU Disruption

MH Need

Male Female


Females entering detention have higher identified needs than males.

Mental Health Need, Substance Use Disruption, and History of Abuse/Neglect by Gender, FY2017

37%

39%

54%

29%

29%

29%

23%

33%

29%

Abuse/ Neglect

SU Disruption

MH Need

Hispanic Black White


White youth in detention are identified as having higher needs than minority youth.

Mental Health Need, Substance Use Disruption, and History of Abuse/Neglect by Race/Ethnicity, FY2017

Youth in secure detention have high needs, but do not always have access to services and treatment that address their needs.

Services in secure detention are often only meeting youths’ basic needs.

Services in secure detention are meant to be short-term; however, youth

with longer LOS often do not receive the services or treatment that they

need and typically repeat programs.

Staff report that they do not receive the necessary trauma-informed

training to support the needs of youth that are in detention.

Youth often are unable to start receiving more intensive mental health

treatment while in secure detention and typically just receive psycho-

social evaluations and/or crisis stabilization services.


Diversion: Key Assessment Findings


1

2

3

A significant proportion of youth that are detained are not identified as a public safety risk and detention rates vary substantially by district and youth demographics, in part due to discretion in how youth are referred for screening and how the screening tool is used across districts.

Lengths of stay in detention vary significantly based on judicial district and youth demographics, with males, Black youth, and those involved with the child welfare system having the longest stays.

Districts are not fully using SB94 to provide needed detention alternatives, and more generally, SB94 is not being used efficiently to target specific youth and identify and address their needs. At the same time, youth who are detained are not receiving needed services.


Best Practices in the Appropriate Use of Detention

Reserve costly secure detention beds for youth who are a direct risk to public safety or

flight risk.

Establish specific criteria, policies, and training on the use of detention screening

instruments, overrides, and secure vs. alternative vs. no detention.

Establish a continuum of alternatives to detention supervision and services in the

community matched to the risks and needs of youth.

Limit the use of detention as a response to technical violations or failures to comply

with supervision, unless youth are at imminent risk of harming themselves or others.

Develop strategies to better understand and expressly address racial and other types

of disparities in the use of and lengths of stay in detention.


02 Assessment Results • Diversion • Detention

03 Next Steps

Immediate Next Steps

2 Present assessment findings related to disposition, probation, commitment, and placement to the task force (September 6)

Establish working groups focused on disposition/supervision to develop policy recommendations for full task force consideration (September/October)

Reach consensus as a task force around policy options to translate into legislation (October 31)

3

4

1 Establish working groups focused on diversion and detention to develop policy recommendations for full task force consideration (July/August)


Diversion and Detention Working Groups’ Timeline & Next Steps

July 24

• In-person meeting to review findings, identify priorities, and begin discussing recommendations

Mid-August

• In-person meeting to solidify recommendations for the full task force

Week of August 27

• Conference call to prepare for the full task force presentation

September 6

• Presentation of recommendations to full task force


IOYouth timeline and next steps


May June July Sep Oct Nov Dec

Task Force Meeting #1

Project Launch Task Force Meeting #2

2019 Session April

Initial Data Analysis

Detailed Data Analysis Final Data Analysis Impact Analysis

Stakeholder Engagement Policy Option Development

Bill Drafting

Policymakers, Media and

Stakeholder Engagement

Policy Rollout and Bill

Introduction



improving outcomes for youth in colorado€¦ · • the goal of the assessment is to identify key...

Documents