State Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

March Board Update2014

State Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

• 1974-Congress passed the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act to establish national standards for the administration of juvenile justice and to promote reform of the juvenile justice system in the states.

• Section 223 of the Act directs states to establish governor- appointed State Juvenile Justice Advisory Groups (SAG’s) to oversee the implementation of the Act’s goals.

State Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

• Provide to OJJDP and relevant Federal committees policy and program direction in juvenile justice issues and trends respective to each state.

• Participate in the preparation and administration of the Formula Grants Program Plan as part of the eligibility requirements for receipt of Formula Grant funds.

• Advise the Governor/Legislator about relevant JJ issues and trends.

• Engage broad array of community stakeholders from multiple fields to develop solutions to support system improvement efforts.

• 15 members include stakeholders from: the judiciary, probation, education, children’s advocacy, police, faith-based, and youth.

California State Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

• In 2004 the California’s SAG was placed under Corrections

Standards Authority (CSA) and in 2007 it was reconstituted by the Governor and renamed the State Advisory Committee for Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention (SACJJDP) • Reviews juvenile crime and incarceration statistics for the

identification of issues and trends within the justice continuum

• Develops best practices and relevant policies for recommend to the Governor/Legislature and the BSCC.

• Develops partnerships across systems i.e. education, health, social services to advance comprehensive programming and maximize recourses.

California State Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency PreventionThe Committee has been prominent in its efforts to support

Juvenile Justice system reform:

Reduce reliance on juvenile confinement:A. Effective alternatives to detention/incarceration ;B. Holistic approaches to offender counsel (providing youthful offenders

consistent wrap-around services focused on reducing youthful offending by providing meaningful and necessary services during the court jurisdictional process for the youth and family);

C. Restorative justice methods for holding juveniles accountable and repairing the harm caused by juvenile offending;

D. Support of the Juvenile Detention Alternative Initiative (JDAI) core strategies; and

E. Programs operated by federally recognized tribal governments that serve at-risk youth using the beliefs and values as defined by the Gathering of Native Americans (GONA) principle

California State Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

PreventionReduce Racial Disparities (RED)/Disproportionate Minority

Contact (DMC) I. Addressing disparities in the decision-making processes within the

juvenile justice system that impact youth of color A. Eliminate racial and ethnic disparities across the juvenile

justice continuum. B. Emphasis on community engagement with Probation, law

enforcement and schools as a lynchpin to improved outcomes;

C. Training on the intersection of reduction of implicit bias and the data-driven decision-making; and

D. Applying principles that focus on enhancing correctional practices while still allowing for innovation.

California State Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention

Increase use of evidence-based practices and interventions:Achieving measurable outcomes and making sure that the services

provided and the resources used are effective.A. Support a ‘systems change’ approach within juvenile probation

departments to ensure successful implementation of EBP including:

1. organizational development2. commitment to initial and ongoing professional development

and training3. use of validated risk/needs assessment tools; 4. use of programs and practices known to produce positive

criminal justice outcomes; and 5. quality assurance assessments to ensure program fidelity,

performance management to improve programs and policies.