Agenda Introduction (Chairs) Our Charge (Chairs) Timeline & - - PDF document

ALABAMA JUVENILE JUSTICE TASK FORCE

Agenda

• Introduction (Chairs)
• Our Charge (Chairs)
• Timeline & Process (Chairs)
• System Assessment & Drivers Part 2 (Pew)
• Discussion and Next Steps (Chairs)

Our Charge

“The task force is hereby authorized and directed to study, evaluate, and analyze, a comprehensive review of the state's juvenile justice system and, using a data-driven approach, develop evidence-based policy recommendations for legislative consideration that will accomplish the following:

• Protect public safety;
• Hold juvenile offenders accountable;
• Contain costs;
• Improve outcomes for youth, families, and communities

in Alabama.”

Timeline and Process

Stakeholder Engagement

June- August

• Data Analysis
• System Assessment

September

• Research Review
• Data Follow-Up
• Policy Development
• Subgroups

October

• Subgroups
• Policy Development
• Policy Consensus

November

• Policy Consensus
• Final Report

Stakeholder Roundtables

Completed Roundtables  Detention directors June 15  Juvenile judges July 10  Diversion program providers July 12  County commissioners July 17 Completed Roundtables  Youth in facilities July 21  Probation

• fficers

July 25, 27,

• Aug. 8

 Defense counsel July 25, 26  DYS contracted providers July 26 Upcoming Roundtables  Youth and families

• Aug. 17,

21  DYS youth

• Aug. 22

 Sheriffs

• Aug. 23

 Mental health

• Aug. 21

 Detention youth and staff

• Aug. 30

 Prosecutors TBD  Crime Victims, Survivors and Advocates TBD

Others to be scheduled at the request of the Task Force

Juvenile Justice Drivers Analysis and System Assessment, Part 2

Alabama Juvenile Justice Task Force August 16, 2017

7

Complaint Intake Adjudication Disposition Probation Detention DYS Custody Aftercare DHR Custody Other

Presentation Scope (Parts 1 and 2)

Complaint to Adjudication Presentation 1 Disposition, Supervision and Custody Presentation 2 Pre-Disposition Custody

8

Presentation 1 Overall Key Takeaways

• Decision Making

– State law requires court referral for certain school-based behaviors and mandates prosecution of parents in certain circumstances

• Local interpretations of statute may vary and lead to disparate

responses to similar school-based behavior – There is variation across the state in which offenses are eligible for information adjustment and what conditions are applied – Limited statutory criteria and local interpretation allow for inconsistent detention practices

• There is no statewide funding stream for alternatives to detention pre-

adjudication – JPOs report divergent eligibility criteria for consent decrees and inconsistent practices for issuing fees

9

Presentation 1 Overall Key Takeaways

• Youth Flow

– Lower-level offenses account for most cases in the juvenile justice system

• The proportion of referrals coming from schools has increased,

mostly due to truancy – Racial and gender disparities exist among complaints (in comparison to the general population) and grow as youth get deeper into the juvenile justice system – There is wide variation in whether counties’ share of complaints is consistent with their share of the youth population – Declines in detention have not kept pace with declines in complaints, and in some regions, detention admissions have increased

• Nearly 300 youth are in detention on a given day, roughly the same

as 2012

10

Presentation 1 Overall Key Takeaways

• Youth Flow

– 2/3 of complaints result in petitions, consistent with trends in 2006

• There is variation in how and to what extent counties use informal

adjustment and consent decrees – The proportion of complaints that result in petitions varies by county – The length of informal adjustment/lecture & releases is up 61%; 15% last longer than 6 months

11

Presentation Sources (Part 2)

Interviews and Questionnaires

Interviews  Department of Youth Services (DYS)  Department of Human Resources (DHR)  Department of Mental Health (DMH)  Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC)  Judges, Prosecutors, Defense Attorneys  Chief Probation Officers, Juvenile Probation Officers, and Intake Officers  Department of Education Questionnaires  182 Juvenile Probation Officer Respondents

• Response Rate: 59%
• 82% of counties represented

Documents Reviewed

 State Statutes  Alabama Administrative Code  Court Rules  DYS Policies  AOC Policies  Local Probation Policies  State Board of Education Policies  School District Policies

12

Presentation Sources (Part 2)

Data and Methodology

AOC data:  Complaints, 2006-2016  Probation dispositions, 2006-2016  Youth in adult system (direct file and transfers), 2011-2016 DYS data:  DYS diversion program admissions, 2012-2016  Commitments to DYS custody, 2007-2016 Aggregate data otherwise cited:  OJJDP data on Alabama youth population from 2015 – Puzzanchera, C., Sladky, A. and Kang, W. (2016)

13

Data Follow-Up

14

Petitioning of Complaints

Data Follow Up

15

High proportion of complaints are petitioned, trend holds for first-time complaints

Total Complaints, 2016 % Complaints Petitioned Total First-Time Complaints, 2016 % First-Time Complaints Petitioned Felony 5,193 85% 1,564 71% Misdemeanor 8,310 76% 2,747 60% CHINS 10,050 37% 5,292 27% Total 23,553 61% 9,603 44%

Proportion of Complaints Petitioned by Offense Level, 2016

16

High proportion of complaints are petitioned, trend holds for first-time complaints

Total Complaints, 2016 % Complaints Petitioned Total First-Time Complaints, 2016 % First-Time Complaints Petitioned Felony 5,193 85% 1,564 71% Misdemeanor 8,310 76% 2,747 60% CHINS 10,050 37% 5,292 27% Total 23,553 61% 9,603 44%

Proportion of Complaints Petitioned by Offense Level, 2016

17

Little variation across counties in proportion of all felonies that are petitioned, but more variation for first timers

Top 10 Counties for Felony Complaints, 2016 Total Felony Complaints % Felony Complaints Petitioned Total First-Time Felony Complaints % First-Time Felonies Petitioned Madison 504 65% 134 39% Mobile 503 75% 173 53% Jefferson 423 78% 152 59% Montgomery 411 87% 89 63% Baldwin 306 87% 102 70% Houston 244 63% 83 25% Tuscaloosa 187 81% 54 57% Morgan 129 92% 35 89% Autauga 108 94% 30 83% Escambia 106 99% 16 100% Statewide 5,176 85% 1,558 71%

Proportion of Felony Complaints Petitioned, 2016

18

Little variation across counties in proportion of all felonies that are petitioned, but more variation for first timers

Top 10 Counties for Felony Complaints, 2016 Total Felony Complaints % Felony Complaints Petitioned Total First-Time Felony Complaints % First-Time Felonies Petitioned Madison 504 65% 134 39% Mobile 503 75% 173 53% Jefferson 423 78% 152 59% Montgomery 411 87% 89 63% Baldwin 306 87% 102 70% Houston 244 63% 83 25% Tuscaloosa 187 81% 54 57% Morgan 129 92% 35 89% Autauga 108 94% 30 83% Escambia 106 99% 16 100% Statewide 5,176 85% 1,558 71%

Proportion of Felony Complaints Petitioned, 2016

19

Variation across counties in proportion of misdemeanors that are petitioned, and variation holds for first timers

Top 10 Counties for Misdemeanor Complaints, 2016 Total Misdemeanor Complaints % Misdemeanor Complaints Petitioned Total First-Time Misdemeanor Complaints % First-Time Misdemeanors Petitioned Mobile 905 69% 289 48% Madison 655 33% 236 11% Jefferson 550 59% 205 32% Montgomery 541 83% 172 65% Baldwin 484 75% 169 49% Calhoun 367 58% 157 37% Tuscaloosa 347 55% 102 29% Houston 300 57% 94 28% Shelby 244 89% 96 82% Morgan 231 93% 57 89% Statewide 8,303 76% 2,742 60%

Proportion of Misdemeanor Complaints Petitioned, 2016

20

Variation across counties in proportion of misdemeanors that are petitioned, and variation holds for first timers

Top 10 Counties for Misdemeanor Complaints, 2016 Total Misdemeanor Complaints % Misdemeanor Complaints Petitioned Total First-Time Misdemeanor Complaints % First-Time Misdemeanors Petitioned Mobile 905 69% 289 48% Madison 655 33% 236 11% Jefferson 550 59% 205 32% Montgomery 541 83% 172 65% Baldwin 484 75% 169 49% Calhoun 367 58% 157 37% Tuscaloosa 347 55% 102 29% Houston 300 57% 94 28% Shelby 244 89% 96 82% Morgan 231 93% 57 89% Statewide 8,303 76% 2,742 60%

Proportion of Misdemeanor Complaints Petitioned, 2016

21

Variation across counties in proportion of CHINS that are petitioned, and variation holds for first timers

Top 10 Counties for CHINS Complaints, 2016 Total CHINS Complaints % Complaints Petitioned Total First-Time CHINS Complaints % First-Time CHINS Petitioned Jefferson 1,078 5% 815 3% Cullman 785 1% 379 1% Morgan 733 37% 295 24% Talladega 645 20% 451 3% Coffee 562 3% 234 1% Marshall 469 32% 195 15% Montgomery 416 37% 192 7% Mobile 367 95% 186 97% Shelby 324 27% 191 20% Madison 302 19% 56 20% Statewide 10,047 37% 5,290 27%

Proportion of CHINS Complaints Petitioned, 2016

22

Variation across counties in proportion of CHINS that are petitioned, and variation holds for first timers

Top 10 Counties for CHINS Complaints, 2016 Total CHINS Complaints % Complaints Petitioned Total First-Time CHINS Complaints % First-Time CHINS Petitioned Jefferson 1,078 5% 815 3% Cullman 785 1% 379 1% Morgan 733 37% 295 24% Talladega 645 20% 451 3% Coffee 562 3% 234 1% Marshall 469 32% 195 15% Montgomery 416 37% 192 7% Mobile 367 95% 186 97% Shelby 324 27% 191 20% Madison 302 19% 56 20% Statewide 10,047 37% 5,290 27%

Proportion of CHINS Complaints Petitioned, 2016

23

Re-Offending: Petitions and Informal Adjustments

Data Follow Up

24

Youth who are petitioned on the first complaint have higher rates of reoffending than youth who get informal adjustment

• n their first complaint

26% 26% 25% 24% 17% 18% 18% 16% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 2012 2013 2014 2015 % with Subsequent Complaint

Proportion of Youth Who Have a Subsequent Complaint Within 1 Year, First Complaint 2012-2015

First Complaint Was Petitioned First Complaint Received Informal Adjustment or Lecture & Release

25

Variation in outcomes for first time petitions vs. informal adjustments holds for misdemeanor and CHINS offenses

25% 23% 17% 16% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% First Complaint Was Misdemeanor First Complaint Was CHINS % with Subsequent Complaint

Proportion of Youth Who Have a Subsequent Complaint Within 1 Year, First Complaint 2015

First Complaint Was Petitioned First Complaint Received Informal Adjustment or Lecture & Release

26

Adult Transfer and Direct File

Data Follow Up

27

16% decline in charges filed in the adult system since 2011

1,428 1,198 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Transfers and Direct File Charges, 2011-2016

28

9 in 10 charges in adult system are directly filed without judicial review

19% 23% 14% 17% 8% 9% 81% 77% 86% 83% 92% 91% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2011 (N=1,428) 2012 (N=1,329) 2013 (N=1,380) 2014 (N=1,143) 2015 (N=1,167) 2016 (N=1,198)

Transfers vs. Direct File Charges, 2011-2016

Transfers in Adult System Direct File in Adult System

29

Across direct file and transfers to adult court, Robbery 1st most common offense leading youth into the adult system

Offense Count % All Direct File and Transfer Charges

1 Robbery 1st Degree

372 31%

2 Burglary 1st Degree

76 6%

3 Discharge of Gun in Buidling/Vehicle

42 4%

4 Murder

42 4%

5 Assault 2nd

41 3%

6 Breaking and Entering a Vehicle

53 4%

7 Sodomy 1st Degree

36 3%

8 Theft of Property 2nd Degree

36 3%

9 Assault 1st Degree

36 3%

10 Theft of Property 1st Degree

38 3% Statewide Total 1,198

Top 10 Charges for Youth in Adult System, 2016

30

29% of charges transferred to adult court are for misdemeanor offenses

Misdemeanor Charges Transferred to Adult Court, 2016 Offense % All Transfers

1 Criminal Mischief 3rd

8%

2 Theft of Property 4th

5%

3 Possession of Marijuana 2nd

5%

4 Disorderly Conduct

4%

5 Harassment

2%

6 Reckless Endangerment

2%

7 Assault 3rd

1%

8 Criminal Trespass 2nd

1%

9 False Reporting to Law Enforcement

1%

10 Resisting Arrest

1% % Misdemeanor Transfers 29% Statewide Total 111

31

Adding direct file charges to overall complaints does not magnify variation by county

County % Youth Population (2015) % All Complaints (2016) % All Complaints + Direct File (2016)

1 Mobile

9% 9% 9%

2 Jefferson

13% 8% 9%

3 Madison

7% 6% 6%

4 Montgomery

5% 6% 6%

5 Baldwin

4% 5% 5%

6 Morgan

3% 4% 4%

7 Cullman

2% 4% 3%

8 Talladega

2%

3% 3%

9 Houston

2% 3% 3%

10 Tuscaloosa

4% 3% 3% Statewide Total 504,235 27,925 29,012

Total Complaints in Juvenile and Adult System Among Top 10 Counties for Juvenile Complaints, 2016

32

Adding direct file charges to overall complaints does not magnify variation by county

County % Youth Population (2015) % All Complaints (2016) % All Complaints + Direct File (2016)

1 Mobile

9% 9% 9%

2 Jefferson

13% 8% 9%

3 Madison

7% 6% 6%

4 Montgomery

5% 6% 6%

5 Baldwin

4% 5% 5%

6 Morgan

3% 4% 4%

7 Cullman

2% 4% 3%

8 Talladega

2%

3% 3%

9 Houston

2% 3% 3%

10 Tuscaloosa

4% 3% 3% Statewide Total 504,235 27,925 29,012

Total Complaints in Juvenile and Adult System Among Top 10 Counties for Juvenile Complaints, 2016

33

Data Follow Up Key Takeaways

• Youth Flow

– Across the state, 44% of youth charged with an offense for the first time have their cases petitioned in court, including 60% of youth charged with misdemeanors

• Counties vary widely in their proportion of first-time complaints that are

petitioned – Youth who are petitioned on their first complaint have higher rates of reoffending than youth who get informal adjustment on their first complaint

• This difference holds for different offense types

– The majority of charges against youth in the adult system are directly filed without judicial review

• 29% of transferred charges are misdemeanors
• Other?

34

Disposition

35

Disposition*

No Change in Custody Parental Supervision Probation Supervision Financial Orders Fines up to $250 and restitution Change in Custody Place with any agency or person DHR Custody DYS Custody**

The court may order any dispositions for most adjudicated youth

*No statewide validated risk and needs assessment used to inform disposition decision-making **In most cases CHINS may not be placed in DYS custody

§ 12-15-215

The court may make any other order it deems in the best interest of the child Child adjudicated and in need

• f care and

rehabilitation

36

Statute does not limit the length of supervision or custody, apart from age 21

Until age 21 * For purposes of enforcing financial orders, the court retains contempt remedies indefinitely, including incarceration in jail.

No statutory criteria preclude determinate commitments

§12-15-117; § 12-15-215; § 12-15-219

Statutory Limit

• n Length

Until age 21 Until age 21 Until age 21, but shall be extended to enforce court order*

Supervision or Custody Type Probation DYS Custody Aftercare Court Jurisdiction

37

Statute requires imposition of specific conditions for some youth

Mandatory Discretionary School notification

• Class A and B felony
• Any other offense

Driver’s license suspension

• Possession of a pistol on

school premises

• Withdrawal from school
• Certain alcohol offenses
• DUI
• Drug trafficking
• N/A

Financial

• bligations
• When custody is

transferred, parent must pay child support

• DUI Fines
• Restitution (any offense)
• Fines up to $250

(any offense)

• Court costs (any offense)

Community service

• N/A
• Community service order

(any offense)

§ 28-3A-25,§ 13A-12-291,§ 12-15-215, § 12-15-217, § 16-28-40

38

JPO respondents report wide variation in which types of financial obligations can be assessed against youth

Financial Obligations That Can Be Assessed JPO Respondents (N=180)

Restitution 94% Court costs 92% Supervision fee 51% Assessment to the Crime Victims’ Compensation Fund 48% A fine as part of disposition 47% A fee to pay for a child’s attorney 32% A fee for a consent decree 29% Electronic monitoring fee 28% Drug testing fee 26% Assessment to the Fair Trial Tax Fund 8% Other fees 15%

39

Less than 1/4 of JPO respondents report providing a risk and needs assessment to the court before the disposition hearing

Information Provided to Judge Prior to Disposition JPO Respondents (N=180) A recommendation for disposition 78% Verbal report 73% Written social history report 34% Pre-disposition report 34% Results of a risk and needs assessment 22% Other 11% None 3%

40

Disposition Key Takeaways

• Decision Making

– For most offense types, the courts have discretion to impose any combination of dispositions and any conditions they deem appropriate

• JPO respondents report wide variation in which types of conditions can

be imposed on youth – The court has discretion to keep youth under its jurisdiction until they age

• ut of the system and for longer for repayment of financial obligations

– Disposition decision making is not informed by a risk and needs assessment statewide

41

Probation

42

JPOs who supervise youth on probation receive little guidance from the state to inform decision-making

Statute provides clear guidance

§ 12-15-107

Statute does not provide clear guidance

43

According to JPO respondents, whether they use an individualized case plan with probation youth varies

Yes , 63% No, 29% For some youth, 8%

Use individualized case plan JPO Respondents (N=180)

Yes No For some youth. Please explain:

44

About 2/3 of JPO respondents do not use an assessment or written guidelines to inform meeting frequency

Determining Frequency of Meetings for Youth on Caseload JPO Respondents (N=180) Professional judgment 72% Offense type 56% Court order 56% Criminal history 54% Placement status (at home vs. in non- secure out-of-home community placements vs. secure placement) 54% Written guidelines 39% Risk and needs assessment 30% Other 10% Proximity to the youth 9%

45

3/4 of JPO respondents report gaps in services; less than half report that available services are timely

Accessing Service Gaps: Strongly Agree or Agree with Statement JPO Respondents (N=180) I have the ability to accurately assess the needs of youth 91% There are appropriate services to meet the needs of youth 51% There are enough services to meet the needs of youth 29% There are gaps in services locally based on the geographic location of youth and the service 77% The services available for youth are of high quality 54% The services available for youth are timely (not long wait lists) 40%

46

Lack of statewide standards and access to services leads to regional variation in supervision practices for probation youth

Pickens County

May not leave county No cell phone 8pm curfew Must maintain C average May not possess alcohol

• r tobacco

May not be in the presence

• f alcohol or tobacco

No association with anyone with a court record

Shelby County

May not leave state Maintain passing grades No victim contact No possession of drugs or alcohol No association with any

• ther probationers

Montgomery County

May not leave county No association with “known law violators”

47

Fewer than half of JPO respondents report using written guidelines, court rules, and/or statute to guide sanction decisions for violations

Factors Guiding Sanction Decisions for Violations JPO Respondents (N=180)

Professional judgement 87% Court order 63% Supervisor 50% Written guidelines 46% Court rules 46% Conferencing with others who know the youth 41% Judge’s input 33% District Attorney’s input 30% Statute 28% Other 10%

48

2/3 of JPO respondents may sanction youth for technical violations of probation without returning to court

Yes 66% No 16% It depends 18%

Able to Sanction Without Returning to Court JPO Respondents (N=180)

49

Probation violation alleged Youth may be placed in detention Revocation petition Any further disposition, including

• ut-of-home

placement

Where the court is involved in sanctioning technical violations, it may order any disposition, including extending probation, adding conditions, and placing out of home

JPO may respond formally

• r informally

(unless court

• rder requires

formal response) 72 hours per 6 month period if status offender No DYS placement on VCO violation if status offender If filed, VOP is a new charge Code of Ala. § 12-15-132

50

JPO respondents reported wide variation in removal of youth from home as a sanction for technical violations of probation

Types of Sanctions JPO Respondents (N=180)

Family meeting with probation 91% Increased frequency of contacts 89% Drug testing 88% Earlier curfew 83% Substance abuse treatment (alcohol or drugs) 79% Community service 70% Request a pick up order to detain a youth 54% Diversion program 54% Electronic monitoring/house arrest 51% Secure custody 42% Non-secure out-of-home placement 38% Essay writing 37% Other 6%

51

Half of JPO respondents who are able to detain youth as a sanction report doing so without returning to court

Yes 34% No 49% It depends 17%

Able to Detain Without Returning to Court JPO Respondents Who Detain Youth As Sanction (N=97)

52

More than 3/4 of JPO respondents say probation-imposed financial conditions must be completed before termination

Factors Leading to Successful Termination JPO Respondents (N=180) Complete probation-imposed conditions (non- pecuniary) 86% Pay fines and fees in full 78% Pay restitution in full 77% Complete timeframe in court order 74% Complete non-pecuniary court-ordered conditions in the court order 67% Complete pecuniary court-ordered conditions in the court order 66% Other 8%

53

Majority of JPO respondents must get approval from the judge to successfully terminate a probation case

Who Must Sign Off on Successful Termination JPO Respondents (N=180) I must get approval from the judge 68% I must get approval from my supervisor 46% No one – it is up to probation alone to decide when to close a youth’s case 18% It depends 9% I must get approval from the district attorney 6%

54

Probation

Data

55

51% decline in probation dispositions, matching 50% decline in complaints

12,761 6,233 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Total Probation Dispositions

56

Offense profile for probation dispositions has remained steady over the past decade

Felony 27% Misdemea nor 42% Traffic 1% CHINS 16% Technical Violation 14% Probation Dispositions by Offense Level, 2006 (N=12,106) Felony 26% Misdemea nor 38% Traffic 0.3% CHINS 18% Technical Violation 18% Probation Dispositions by Offense Level, 2016 (N=5,663)

57

Only 3 out of the top 10 offenses at probation disposition are felonies

Offense % Total Felony?

1 Violation of Probation / Delinquent

15%

2 CHINS / Truancy

10%

3 Domestic Violence - 3rd

6%

4 Unlawful Poss. of Marijuana - 2nd

5%

5 Theft of Property - 3rd

5% ✓

6 Harassment

5%

7 Disorderly Conduct

5%

8 Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle

5% ✓

9 Burglary - 3rd

4% ✓

10 CHINS / Beyond Control

4% Statewide 5,663

Top 10 Offenses at Probation Disposition, 2016

58

Median length of probation disposition was 18.4 months last year, up 103% since 2009

9.0 18.4 5 10 15 20 25 30 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Months

Median Length of Probation Dispositions 2009-2016 Case Closures

59

41% of probation dispositions last longer than 2 years, 1/3 last more than 3 years

Less than 6 months 12% 6 months to 1 year 21% 1 - 1.5 years 16% 1.5 - 2 years 9% 2 - 2.5 years 6% 2.5 -3 years 4% 3+ years 32% Length of Probation Disposition, 2016 Case Closures (N=7,464)

60

Younger youth stay on probation for longer than older youth

28.3 22.5 14.8 5 10 15 20 25 30 Under 14 Years Old (N=881) 14-15 Years Old (N=2,640) 16+ Years Old (N=3,913) Months

Median Length of Probation Disposition by Age Group 2016 Case Closures

61

Median length of probation dispositions increased for all

• ffense types

8.2 8.9 9.9 11.0 20.4 18.8 16.3 16.6 5 10 15 20 25 Felony Misdemeanor CHINS Technical Violation Months

Median Length of Probation Disposition by Offense Level 2009 vs. 2016 Case Closures

2009 2016

62

Across all their probation cases, 1/3 of youth on probation spend more than 3 years on probation before aging out

Less than 1 year 26% 1 - 1.5 years 17% 1.5 - 2 years 10% 2 - 2.5 years 7% 2.5 - 3 years 5% 3 - 3.5 years 5% 3.5 - 4 years 3% Longer than 4 years 27%

Total Length of Probation Dispositions Closed Probation Cases Where Youth Aged Out, 2016 (N=4,032)

63

Probation Key Takeaways

• Decision Making

– A lack of statewide standards leads to wide variation in both conditions of supervision, and how long supervision lasts

• Fewer than half of JPO respondents report using written guidelines,

court rules, and/or statute to guide technical violation sanction decisions

• More than 3/4 of JPO respondents say financial conditions must be

completed before youth can successfully complete probation

• Fewer than one-third of JPO respondents report that there are enough

services to meet the needs of youth on probation – When a JPO files a probation violation with the court, the court may impose additional conditions, or may elect to place the youth out of home

• About half of JPO respondents report using out-of-home placement in

response to technical violations

64

Probation Key Takeaways

• Youth Flow

– Probation dispositions have declined 50% since 2006, consistent with the decline in juvenile complaints

• Despite this decline, the offense profile of probation dispositions is

primarily low-level and has stayed consistent since 2006

• Only three out of the top 10 offenses at probation disposition are

felonies – The median length of probation dispositions was more than 18 months last year, and has more than doubled since 2009, despite the fact that the

• ffense profile of probationers has not grown more serious
• The median length of probation increased for all offense types and is

longest for younger youth

• 41% of probation dispositions are longer than 2 years

– More than 1/3 of youth on probation spend more than 3 years on probation before aging out

• Other?

65

DYS Diversion

66

DYS funds targeted community-based diversion programs for youth facing DYS custody

“…to provide funding to county juvenile courts to aid in the development and operation of diversion programs to serve youth that meet the legal criteria for commitment to DYS, but the juvenile court has determined that community based services may be a better intervention or sanction.”

DYS Diversion Goal (2017 Diversion Grant Application)

DYS Diversion not defined in statute

67

DYS diversion programs not funded in all jurisdictions

Nonresidential Residential

68

While DYS contracts specify some set criteria, in practice, length, eligibility and services vary widely

Related requirement in DYS contract? What is the requirement? What happens in practice? Residential status Yes “Community-based” 4 residential 25 non-residential Length No N/A 6 weeks up to 2 years Provides evidence-based treatment No N/A Treatment quality varies Available to low- risk youth Yes Low-risk excluded Some admitted Available to CHINS/ Status offenders Yes CHINS excluded Some admitted Available to non- court involved youth Yes Youth without court- involvement excluded Some admitted

69

Type of intervention available to youth through DYS diversion varies considerably based on location

Robert E. Lewis Academy

Residential 6 counties served 3 months (reported avg. length) Physical training, therapy and aftercare

Project Turnaround

Nonresidential 1 county served 6-18 months (reported avg. length) Wrap-around services

Youth Villages

Nonresidential 2 counties served 5 months (reported avg. length) Multi-Systemic Therapy

70

DYS Diversion

Data

71

Admissions to non-residential and out-of-home diversion programs have increased similarly (26% and 25%)

2,445 3,085 563 701 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Total DYS Diversion Admissions, Residential vs. Non-Residential

Non-residential Residential

72

Average length of diversion has converged for non-residential and out-of-home programs, about 3 months

169.3 104.2 100.1 109.4 50 100 150 200 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Days

Average Length of DYS Diversion, Non-Residential vs. Residential

Non-residential Residential

73

Daily non-residential diversion population is down 19%, but daily out-of-home diversion population is up 52%

150 228 1,133 921 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 July 1 Snapshot

Youth in DYS Diversion Programs, July 1 Snapshot

Residential Diversion Non Residential Diversion

74

Approximately 1 in 5 DYS diversion admissions are to

• ut-of-home programs

81% 81% 83% 79% 81% 19% 19% 17% 21% 19% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

DYS Diversion Admissions, Non-Residential vs. Residential

Non-residential Residential

75

More than half of out-of-home diversion admissions are for CHINS and misdemeanor offenses

Felony 18% Misdemean

• r

39% CHINS 14% Technical Violation 29% Residential Diversion by Offense Level, 2016 (N=701)

76

Only 2 out the top 10 offenses leading to out-of-home diversion are felonies

Offense % Total Felony?

1 Technical Violation

28%

2 CHINS/Ungovernable

9%

3 Domestic Violence 3rd

7%

4 Disorderly Conduct

6%

5 Harassment

4%

6 Burglary 3rd

4% ✓

7 CHINS/Truancy

3%

8 Theft of Property 3rd

3% ✓

9 Possession of Marijuana 2nd

3%

10 Criminal Mischief 3rd

2% Statewide Total 701

Top 10 Offenses Leading to Residential Diversion, 2016

77

County variation in non-residential diversion greater than county variation in complaints

County % Youth Population (2015) % All Complaints (2016) % All Non-Residential Admissions (2016)

1 Montgomery

5% 6% 18%

2 Etowah

2% 1% 9%

3 Jefferson

13% 8% 9%

4 Madison

7% 6% 9%

5 Morgan

3% 4% 9%

6 Tuscaloosa

4% 3% 6%

7 Franklin

1% 1% 5%

8 Colbert

1% 2% 4%

9 Shelby

5% 3% 3%

10 Mobile

9% 9% 3% Statewide 504,235 27,925 3,084

Top 10 Counties for Non-Residential Diversion, 2016

78

County % Youth Population (2015) % All Complaints (2016) % All Residential Admissions (2016)

1 Houston

2% 3% 8%

2 Mobile

9% 9% 8%

3 Baldwin

4% 5% 7%

4 Dallas

1% 1% 6%

5 Franklin

1% 1% 5%

6 Dale

1% 1% 5%

7 Calhoun

2% 2% 4%

8 Barbour

0% 1% 4%

9 St. Clair

2% 2% 4%

10 Morgan

3% 4% 3% Statewide 504,235 27,925 700

Top 10 Counties for Residential Diversion, 2016

County variation in out-of-home diversion greater than county variation in complaints

79

Completion rate higher for non-residential diversion than

• ut-of-home diversion

86% 77% 14% 23% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Non-residential (N=3,001) Residential (N=664)

DYS Diversion Completion - Residential vs. Non-Residential Programs, 2016 Completion

Successful Unsuccessful

80

7% of youth who start in non-residential diversion, 20% who start in out-of-home diversion end up committed within 1 year

7% 20% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% First Diversion Nonresidential First Diversion Residential

Proportion of Youth Committed Within 1 Year of After Their First Diversion, First Diversion End Date 2015

81

DYS Diversion Key Takeaways

• Decision Making

– To divert youth from state custody, DYS provides funds for community- based programming to some, but not all, localities – A lack of statewide standards leads to wide variation in program length, eligibility, services provided, and whether youth remain in their homes

• Youth Flow

– The out-of-home diversion population is up 52% since 2012, while the non- residential diversion population is down 19%

• This is driven by increasing length of stay for out-of-home programs

– The use of out-of-home versus non-residential diversion varies widely across counties – More than half of out-of-home diversion admissions are for CHINS and misdemeanor offenses, and only two out the top 10 offenses are felonies – Youth who start in out-of-home diversion have higher rates of subsequent DYS commitment than youth who start in non-residential diversion

• Other?

82

DYS Custody

83

Once committed to DYS Custody, DYS has discretion to place youth in an array of residential settings

4 Group Homes 9 Residential Treatment Programs 3 Drug treatment 2 Specialized Treatment 1 High Intensity Treatment (HIT) program 2 Secure Facilities

DYS-Contracted Facilities DYS-Operated Facilities NOTE: Facilities not required to provide evidence-based services shown to reduce reoffending

84

DYS placement determination is guided by a risk assessment, but that risk assessment is not validated

*Placement required within 7 days unless placement would violate state statute or occupancy standard; may be longer in practice

Court commits child to DYS custody* DYS determines placement Child placed

Youth may be detained pending placement for 7 days* DYS requires JPOS to conduct a risk assessment (not validated) to guide placement

§ 12-15-215

85

DYS has discretion to determine length of stay for most youth

Court commits* to DYS DYS places Quarterly custody reviews Re-staff Higher security Lower security Release/ discharge Program completion based on individual plan; no uniform criteria *For determinate commitments, DYS discretion to release is limited

Team within DYS conducts

86

DYS develops release plan and aftercare recommendations; local court implements

DYS develops release plan Notification to court of release/ discharge* Probation implements aftercare plan with available services Educational alternatives may be required

*60 days notice when sex offender is released, 30 days notice when SJO is released, 10 days notice for all other releases

No statewide funding stream for aftercare-specific services

§ 15-20A-26, § 12-15-219,§ 44-1-36

87

JPOs who supervise youth on aftercare receive little guidance from the state to inform decision-making

Aftercare Supervision Length Indefinite up to jurisdictional age limit Services Recommended by DYS, ordered by court Supervision Supervised by JPOs, frequency and type of contact varies Conditions No statewide parameters, vary by jurisdiction

88

For those youth placed on aftercare, violation may lead to recommitment

DYS Custody Discharge* Release

Aftercare

Successful Completion* Revocation**

Supervised by JPO; under jurisdiction of juvenile court DYS makes service plan recommendations Any youth who turns 21 in custody or others

• rdered by court

*Denotes case is closed **Statute does not distinguish probation violations from aftercare violations

89

DYS Custody

Data

90

DYS commitments are down 59% since 2007, but the decline has leveled off since 2012

3,120 1,281 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Total DYS Commitments, 2007-2016

91

Regular commitments down 54%, HIT commitments down 68%, SJO commitments down 62% since 2007

2,099 956 974 307 47 18 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Total DYS Commitments by Type, 2007-2016

Regular Commitments HIT Commitments SJOs

92

County variation in DYS commitments

County % Youth Population (2015) % All Complaints (2016) % DYS Commitments (2016)

1

Mobile 9% 9% 9%

2

Jefferson 13% 8% 9%

3

Baldwin 4% 5% 8%

4

Montgomery 5% 6% 7%

5

Madison 7% 6% 5%

6

Talladega 2% 3% 4%

7

Calhoun 2% 2% 4%

8

Lee 3% 3% 3%

9

Houston 2% 3% 3%

10

Tallapoosa 1% 1% 3% Statewide Total 504,235 27,925 1,281

Top 10 Counties for DYS Commitments, 2016

93

Nearly 2/3 of DYS commitments are for non-felonies, now driven by a higher proportion of technical violators

43% 37% 31% 30% 25% 33% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2011 (N=1,698) 2016 (N=1,280)

DYS Commitments by Offense Level, 2011 vs. 2016

Felony Misdemeanor Technical Violation

94

Mostly technical violations, property, and drug offenses among top drivers of DYS commitment

Offense % All Offenses (2016) Felony?

Petition to Revoke Probation 25% Theft of Property, 1st 5% ✓ Petition to Revoke Aftercare 4% Possession of Marijuana, 2nd 4% Burglary, 3rd 3% ✓ Receiving Stolen Property, 1st 3% ✓ Disorderly Conduct 3% Domestic Violence, 3rd 3% Theft of Property, 2nd 2% ✓ Breaking and Entering into a Vehicle 2% ✓ Statewide Total 1,281

Top 10 Offenses for DYS Commitments, 2016

95

Average length of stay is 4.6 months for regular commitments, 1.1. months for HIT, 13.4 months for SJOs

4.9 4.6 1.1 1.1 12.1 13.4 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Months

Average Length of DYS Commitment by Type, 2009-2016 Releases

Regular Commitments HIT Commitments SJOs

96

Nearly 60% of DYS commitments were not in a DYS diversion program prior to their first commitment

41% 46% 26% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% All Commitments (N=1,281) Regular Commitments (N=956) HIT Commitments (N=307)

Proportion of Youth Who Were in DYS Diversion Prior to their First DYS Commitment, 2016 Commitments

97

85% of DYS commitments were not in a non-residential DYS diversion program before commitment

15% 15% 17% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% All Commitments (N=1,281) Regular Commitments (N=956) HIT Commitments (N=307)

Proportion of Youth Who Were in DYS Non-Residential Diversion Prior to First DYS Commitment, 2016 Commitments

98

Daily committed out-of-home population down 33% since 2009, but daily out-of-home diversion up 52% since 2012

665 485 443 150 228 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 July 1 Snapshot

Total DYS Funded Out-of-Home Placement July 1 Snapshot

DYS Committed Out of Home Placement DYS Residential Diversion

99

Out-of-home diversion now accounts for 1/3 of the DYS- funded out-of-home population, which is up 6% since 2012

635 671 24% 34% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 % Total DYS Out of Home Population July 1 Snapshot

Total DYS Funded Out-of-Home Placement, July 1 Snapshot

Total DYS-Funded Out of Home Population (Commitment + Diversion) Proportion of Out of Home Population in Residential Diversion

100

Nearly 3/4 of DYS commitments are released to aftercare

69% 73% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Proportion of DYS Commitments Released to Aftercare, 2009-2016 Releases

101

Gender disparities grow at each decision point in the juvenile system and are largest for charges filed in the adult system

49% 33% 27% 26% 27% 14% 2% 6% 51% 66% 72% 74% 73% 86% 98% 94% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Gender Breakdown of Key Decision Points

Female Male

102

Racial disparities grow at each decision point in the juvenile system and are largest for charges filed in the adult system

61% 49% 49% 49% 50% 41% 34% 15% 31% 47% 49% 49% 44% 57% 61% 84% 8% 3% 2% 2% 6% 2% 5% 1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Race Breakdown of Key Decision Points

White Black Other

103

DYS Custody Key Takeaways

• Decision Making

– DYS has discretion to place youth in an array of facilities, none of which are required to provide evidence-based services shown to reduce reoffending

• The risk assessment tool used by DYS to guide the placement

decision is not validated on Alabama youth – JPOs who supervise youth on aftercare receive little guidance from the state to inform decision making, including when to release a youth from supervision

• Aftercare youth whose supervision is revoked by the court could be

recommitted to DYS custody or ordered to complete additional conditions

104

DYS Custody Key Takeaways

• Youth Flow

– DYS commitments are down 59% since 2007, but the decline has leveled off since 2012 – Nearly 2/3 of DYS commitments are for non-felonies, now driven by a higher proportion of technical violations – Nearly 60% of DYS commitments were not in a DYS diversion program prior to their first commitment; 85% were not in a non-residential DYS diversion program – Youth in out-of-home diversion now account for 1/3 of the DYS-funded out-of- home population

• When out-of-home diversion and commitments are combined, the overall

DYS-funded out-of-home population is up 6% since 2012 – Nearly 3/4 of DYS commitments are released to aftercare, and revocations from aftercare are the 3rd most common reason for DYS commitment – Of all decision points in the juvenile justice system (excluding adult transfers and direct files), racial and gender disparities are largest for DYS commitment

• Other?

105

System Costs

106

Out-of-home diversion programs cost the state 58% more than non-residential programs on average

*Rates reflect only dollars paid by DYS and do not include additional funds that come from

• ther sources such as counties, Medicaid, the Department of Education

$20,075 $31,755 $0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 Non-residential Residential

Average Annual Cost to DYS for DYS Diversion

107

Out-of-home placements cost the state 15 to 91 times more than probation

$1,768 $2,278 $33,945 $80,300 $106,945 $161,694 $- $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000 $140,000 $160,000 $180,000 Probation (All Counties) Probation (Assumed Only) DYS Private Placement (Lowest Cost) DYS Private Placement (Highest Cost) DYS Group Home DYS Secure

FY 2016 Annual Cost of Probation and Out-of-Home Placement Beds*

*Per Diem figures for Probation calculated from data provided by AOC, per diem figures for DYS provided by DYS

108

Complaint Intake Adjudication Disposition Probation Detention* DYS Custody Aftercare DHR Custody Other

State expenditures on juvenile supervision and placement supplemented by county funding in certain areas

DYS & County DYS Funded DHR Funded AOC & County Funded Pre-Disposition Custody*

*State does not fund home-based alternatives to detention

109

The state funds detention at a set level statewide and all remaining costs borne by counties

$14,000 per county served $0.2449 per person in each county All remaining costs* Funding for Juvenile Detention Facility

DYS pays to facility

Pro-rated based

• n actual legislative

appropriation

County pays to facility

*In some jurisdictions, municipalities contribute to detention operation costs

Juvenile Detention Facility Funding Formula

110

System Costs Key Takeaways

– Out-of-home diversion programs cost the state 58% more than non- residential programs on average – DYS out-of-home placement for committed youth costs up to 91 times more than probation

• DYS out-of-home placements cost as much as $161,694 per youth per

year – The state funds detention at a set level statewide, subject to legislative appropriation, with remaining costs borne by counties

111

Overall Key Takeaways

• Decision Making

– Statute allows the court to impose any combination of dispositions or conditions for most youth – Disposition decision making is not informed by a risk and needs assessment statewide – The court has discretion to keep youth under its jurisdiction until they age

• ut of the system, or for longer to repay financial obligations

– Youth may be placed out of home or have any condition added for any violation of supervision – DYS is not required to use evidence-based services shown to reduce reoffending – DYS out-of-home placement costs 15 to 91 times more than probation

112

Overall Key Takeaways

• Youth Flow

– Probation dispositions and DYS commitments have declined by more than 50% over the past decade – Racial disparities and gender disparities are present for all decision points and are largest for youth in the adult system – The median length of probation has more than doubled since 2009, despite the fact that the offense profile has not grown more serious,

• Nearly 1/3 of probation dispositions last longer than 3 years

– Probation violations are growing as a share of DYS commitments and out-

• f-home diversion admissions

– Most youth committed to DYS have not been given the opportunity for a non-residential DYS diversion prior to their first commitment

• Other?

Next Steps

• Research presentations
• Subgroup planning
• Stakeholder outreach and roundtables
• Individual meetings

Future Meetings

• September 6

– September 7: Hold for Research Webinar

• October 18
• November 15