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 • Data Analysis June- August • System Assessment • Research Review • Data Follow-Up September • Policy Development Stakeholder • Subgroups Engagement • Subgroups October • Policy Development • Policy Consensus • Policy Consensus November • Final Report
Stakeholder Roundtables Completed Completed Upcoming Roundtables Roundtables Roundtables Youth and Aug. 17, Detention June Youth in July families 21 directors 15 facilities 21 DYS youth Aug. 22 Juvenile July Sheriffs Aug. 23 July 10 Probation judges 25, 27, officers Aug. 8 Mental health Aug. 21 Diversion Detention Aug. 30 program July 12 Defense July youth and staff providers counsel 25, 26 Prosecutors TBD Crime Victims, County DYS Survivors and TBD July 17 July commissioners Advocates contracted 26 providers 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
Presentation Scope (Parts 1 and 2) Probation Pre-Disposition Custody Detention Complaint Intake Adjudication Disposition DYS Custody Aftercare DHR Custody Other Complaint to Adjudication Presentation 1 Disposition, Supervision and Custody Presentation 2 7 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 8
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 9 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 10
Presentation Sources (Part 2) Documents Reviewed Interviews and Questionnaires State Statutes Interviews Alabama Administrative Code Department of Youth Services (DYS) Court Rules Department of Human Resources (DHR) DYS Policies Department of Mental Health (DMH) AOC Policies Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) Local Probation Policies Judges, Prosecutors, Defense Attorneys State Board of Education Policies Chief Probation Officers, Juvenile Probation Officers, and Intake Officers School District Policies Department of Education Questionnaires 182 Juvenile Probation Officer Respondents • Response Rate: 59% • 82% of counties represented 11 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) 12
Data Follow-Up 13 Petitioning of Complaints Data Follow Up 14
High proportion of complaints are petitioned, trend holds for first-time complaints Proportion of Complaints Petitioned by Offense Level, 2016 % First-Time Total Complaints, % Complaints Total First-Time Complaints 2016 Petitioned Complaints, 2016 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% 15 High proportion of complaints are petitioned, trend holds for first-time complaints Proportion of Complaints Petitioned by Offense Level, 2016 % First-Time Total Complaints, % Complaints Total First-Time Complaints 2016 Petitioned Complaints, 2016 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% 16
Little variation across counties in proportion of all felonies that are petitioned, but more variation for first timers Proportion of Felony Complaints Petitioned, 2016 Top 10 Counties for % Felony Total First-Time % First-Time Total Felony Felony Complaints, Complaints Felony Felonies Complaints 2016 Petitioned Complaints 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% 17 Little variation across counties in proportion of all felonies that are petitioned, but more variation for first timers Proportion of Felony Complaints Petitioned, 2016 Top 10 Counties for % Felony Total First-Time % First-Time Total Felony Felony Complaints, Complaints Felony Felonies Complaints 2016 Petitioned Complaints 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% 18
Variation across counties in proportion of misdemeanors that are petitioned, and variation holds for first timers Proportion of Misdemeanor Complaints Petitioned, 2016 Top 10 Counties for Total % Misdemeanor Total First-Time % First-Time Misdemeanor Misdemeanor Complaints Misdemeanor Misdemeanors Complaints, 2016 Complaints Petitioned Complaints 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% 19 Variation across counties in proportion of misdemeanors that are petitioned, and variation holds for first timers Proportion of Misdemeanor Complaints Petitioned, 2016 Top 10 Counties for Total % Misdemeanor Total First-Time % First-Time Misdemeanor Misdemeanor Complaints Misdemeanor Misdemeanors Complaints, 2016 Complaints Petitioned Complaints 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% 20
Recommend
More recommend
