Pennsylvania’s Juvenile Justice System Enhancement Strategy

(JJSES)

Probation System Reform Symposium:

Advancing Practice, Changing Lives

The Robert F. Kennedy National Resource Center for Juvenile Justice

Keith B. Snyder, Executive Director

Richard D. Steele, Deputy Director

Pennsylvania Juvenile Court Judges’ Commission

www.jcjc.pa.gov

April 7-8, 2016 1

History of Pa’s JJSES

Summer of 2010

• Pa’s Models for Change Initiative winding down (2005-2010)

• Aftercare (re-entry)

• Mental Health / Juvenile Justice Coordination

• Disproportionate Minority Contact

• Various initiatives needed to be “under one roof” for sustainability

• Interest in “evidence-based practices” to reduce recidivism

• Concept of a Juvenile Justice System Enhancement Strategy (JJSES) “born” in June 2010 at JCJC/Chief Juvenile Probation Officer Annual Strategic Planning Meeting

• JJSES Leadership Team established

2

Pa’s JJSES Leadership Team

• Coordinator Appointed

• State/Local leaders led/shared ownership of “Stages”

• Strategically Selected individuals who:

• Are Respected

• Can Influence Others

• Are Passionate

• Are Task-Oriented

• Know “How To Play In The Sandbox”

• Are Smart

• Having A Big Checkbook Doesn’t Hurt

3

Pennsylvania Juvenile Justice System Enhancement Strategy (JJSES)

Statement of Purpose

We dedicate ourselves to working in partnership to enhance the capacity of Pennsylvania’s juvenile justice system to achieve its balanced and restorative justice mission by:

Employing evidence-based practices, with fidelity, at every stage of the juvenile justice process;

Collecting and analyzing the data necessary to measure the results of these efforts; and, with this knowledge,

Striving to continuously improve the quality of our decisions, services and programs.

4

Leadership Team’s Initial Activities

• Identification of various initiatives/activities

• Who’s “in charge”?

• Where is the “home” of each initiative / activity?

• What’s the status of each initiative / activity?

• Is there a sustainability plan?

5

Challenges:

• The pieces of the puzzle were at various stages of implementation among jurisdictions

• How do we “transform” the pieces of the puzzle into a comprehensive strategy?

• What is the recommended sequence of activities for probation departments, providers, and others?

• Do we have the necessary infrastructure to support implementation of each element?

• Communications strategy

• Stakeholder involvement

• What does “evidence-based” really mean?

6

Intermediate Goals / Activities

• Develop a framework for an implementation strategy

• Develop a JJSES “Monograph”

• Designate “Stage Leaders” and develop an infrastructure to support activities

• Create workgroups to achieve broader juvenile justice system representation and involvement

• Integrate “lessons learned” from PA’s participation in the Juvenile Justice System Improvement Project (JJSIP) and other reform initiatives

7

Two Key “Lessons Learned”

“In order to go fast……slow down!”

Implementation Science: Over 70% of new initiatives fail due to the lack of proper

implementation planning

8

9

10 www.jcjc.pa.gov

11 www.jcjc.pa.gov

JJSES Stage One: Readiness

• Introduction to Evidence-Based Training

• Organizational Readiness

• Cost/Benefit Analysis

• Stakeholder Engagement

12

JJSES Stage Two: Initiation

• Motivational Interviewing

• Structured Decision Making

• Detention Assessment

• MAYSI~2 Screen

• YLS Risk/Needs Assessment

• Inter-rater Reliability

• Case Plan Development

13

JJSES Stage Three: Behavioral Change

• Skill Building Tools

• Cognitive Behavioral Interventions

• Responsivity

• Evidence-Based Programming and Interventions

• Service Provider Alignment

• Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol

• Graduated Responses

14

JJSES Stage Four: Refinement

• Policy Alignment

• Performance Measures

• EBP Service Contracts

15

Fundamental Building Blocks of the JJSES Model

• Delinquency Prevention

• Diversion

• Family Involvement

• Data Driven Decision-Making

• Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI)

16

PA Juvenile Delinquency Dispositions of New Allegations

2007-2014 (Excludes disposition reviews and placement reviews)

Source: Juvenile Court Judges’ Commission

4,692 4,591 4,620

4,237 3,588 3,083 3,244

3,180

8,796 8,572 7,756 6,109 5,530 5,769 5,366 4,005

32,085 30,591 29,185

26,308 23,426

22,227 20,347

18,382

45,573 43,754

41,561 36,654

32,544 31,079

28,957

25,567

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

Allegheny Philadelphia Remaining Counties Total

• Between 2007 and 2014, the number of juvenile delinquency dispositions from new allegations decreased 44%, from 45,573 to 25,567.

17

PA Juvenile Secure Detention Admissions

2007-2014 Source: Juvenile Court Judges’ Commission

3,210 3,151 3,369 3,385 3,362 2,967 2,362 2,040

5,863 6,511 6,171 5,869

5,403 4,612

3,525

3,101

10,221 9,032

7,729 7,400 6,586

6,328 5,718

4,979

19,294

18,694 17,269

16,654 15,351

13,907

11,605

10,120

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

Allegheny Philadelphia Remaining Counties Statewide

• Between 2007 and 2014, the number of secure detention admissions decreased 48%, from 19,294 to 10,120. • Since 2006, 9 of 24 (38%) of secure juvenile detention centers have ceased operations.

18

PA Juvenile Delinquency Placements

2007-2014 (Includes disposition reviews but excludes placement reviews)

Source: Juvenile Court Judges’ Commission

686 587 587 521 524 387 404 412

2,144 2,404 2,311 2,269

1,497 1,630 1,546

1,290

4,695 4,453

3,678 3,491 3,312 3,150

2,812

2,434

7,525 7,444

6,576 6,281

5,333 5,167 4,762

4,136

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

Allegheny Philadelphia Remaining Counties Total

• Between 2007 and 2014, the number of delinquency placements decreased 45%, from 7,525 to 4,136.

19

PA Juvenile Delinquency Placements as a

Percent of Dispositions

2007-2014 (Includes disposition reviews but excludes placement reviews)

Source: Juvenile Court Judges’ Commission

8.4%

7.2%

7.3%

6.7%

7.2%

5.4% 5.7%

6.0% 7.2%

7.3%

7.0%

7.4%

6.2%

7.4% 7.6% 7.3%

12.4% 12.1%

10.1% 10.4% 10.1% 9.0% 8.6%

8.2%

9.9% 9.5%

8.5% 8.7% 8.3% 8.1%

7.9% 7.6%

0.0%

3.0%

6.0%

9.0%

12.0%

15.0%

Allegheny Philadelphia Remaining Counties Total

• Between 2007 and 2014, the percentage of placements as dispositions decreased 23%, from 9.9% to 7.6%.

20

Total Delinquency Placement Expenditures*:

Fiscal Year 08-09 to Fiscal Year 13-14 Source: Office of Children, Youth, and Families (OCYF) Needs-Based Budget

*Does not include secure detention costs.

• Total delinquency placement expenditures decreased by $90,542,350, when comparing FY 08-09 to FY 13-14 costs.

This represents a decrease of 28% in expenditures.

21

$321,652,465

$301,096,226 $291,483,357

$275,730,457 $261,691,698

$231,110,115

$0

$100,000,000

$200,000,000

$300,000,000

$400,000,000

FY 08-09 FY 09-10 FY 10-11 FY 11-12 FY 12-13 FY 13-14

Juvenile Justice Recidivism Analysis

Purpose: Needed recidivism benchmark to measure change

Definition: A subsequent adjudication of delinquency or criminal court

conviction for a felony or misdemeanor offense within two years of

case closure

Baseline (Pre-JJSES) Statewide Recidivism Rates

Cases closed in 2007 (N=18,882) 20%

Cases closed in 2008 (N=18,910) 22%

Cases closed in 2009 (N=18,439) 23%

Cases closed in 2010 (N=16,800) 22%

4-year average (N=73,031) 22%

22

20%

22%

23%

22%

18%

15%

16%

17%

18%

19%

20%

21%

22%

23%

24%

25%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Rec

idiv

ism

Ra

te

Pennsylvania Juvenile Court Judges' Commission

Five-Year Pennsylvania Statewide Recidivism Rates:

Juveniles with Cases Closed in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, or 2011

23