ALAMEDA COUNTYS JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM Josh Weber, Deputy Director, - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Josh Weber, Deputy Director, Corrections and Reentry

IMPROVING OUTCOMES, EQUITY, AND THE EFFICIENT USE OF RESOURCES FOR YOUTH IN ALAMEDA COUNTY’S JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM

About the CSG Justice Center

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

2

Our Juvenile Justice Program Focuses on Improving Outcomes for Youth in the Juvenile Justice System

3

We’ve Partnered with an Array of States and Counties to Facilitate Systemic Juvenile Justice System Improvement

WA MT ID WY ND MN OR NV CA AZ UT NE CO KS OK LA AR TN NM TX HI AK IA IL MO KY IN OH SD WI MI MS AL GA SC FL WV MD VA NC DE NY PA NJ MA RI CT VT NH ME

4

What Challenges Do States and Counties Face to Ensuring Resources Are Used Efficiently to Protect Public Safety and Improve Youth Outcomes?

Juvenile Incarceration Rates Have Declined Significantly Over the Last Decade

6

Increased Proportion of Youth Are Being Placed on Community Supervision

As many youth receive community supervision each year as are incarcerated

7

Texas Case Study: Examining the Impact of De-incarceration and Community Investment

Juvenile Probation and Secure Confinement Data Criminal History and Prison Admission Data Two Closer to Home Study Cohorts

• 899,101 records
• 452,751 juveniles
• Dispositions and

secure releases

• 408,312 records
• 242,541 juveniles
• Arrests and

incarcerations

• Pre-reform

cohort: 27,131 juveniles

• Post-reform

cohort: 31,371 juveniles

8

Community Supervision is a Better Public Safety Strategy than Incarceration

One-Year Probability of Rearrest

Released from State- Run Secure Facilities Supervised in the Community 21% more likely to be rearrested

9

Community Supervision is a Better Public Safety Strategy than Incarceration

First Recidivism Offense a Felony

Released from State- Run Secure Facilities Supervised in the Community 3x more likely to commit a felony when recidivating

10

FY2005 FY2012 % Change

Expenditures adjusted for inflation – to 2014 dollars

$4,337 $7,304 68

Texas Invested Significant Resources into Community Supervision and Services

11

Rearrest Rates Were Comparable Despite Resource Investments

Intervention Type

State incarceration Skill-Based Program Treatment Program Surveillance Program Secure County Placement Non-Secure County Placement No Intervention

Pre-Reform Study Group

One-Year Probability of Rearrest

41% 29% 28% 31% 33% 35% 33%

Post-Reform Study Group

One-Year Probability of Rearrest

41% 27% 30% 29% 34% 35% 32%

12

Youth Consistently Received Higher Levels of Supervision than Warranted Based on their Risk Level

21% 79% Diversion Expected (N=6,625)

Diverted Not Diverted

37% 63% Deferment Expected (N=5,639)

Deferred Not Deferred

43% 57% Probation Expected (N=4,373)

Probated Not Probated

13

Youth were Detained at Far Higher Rates than Warranted

57% 43% Not Detained Detained

Percent Detained in Cases Where Detention Not Expected

9% 91% Expected (N=1,596) Not Expected (N=15,344)

Percent of Cases Where Detention was Expected

14

Both Low and Higher Risk Youth Received Higher Levels of Supervision than Warranted

25% 23% 12% 27% 13% 34% 50% 16% High Risk (N=2,572) Low Risk (N=8,840) Zero 1 to 2 3 to 5 6 or more

Percent of Cases with Points Over Expected Levels of Supervision by Risk Level

15

Black Youth Consistently Received Higher Levels of Supervision than Warranted Compared to their Peers

19% 29% 22% 17% 22% 26% 29% 24% 28% 35% 25% 24% Black Hispanic White Zero 1 to 2 points 3 to 5 points 6 or more points

Percent of Cases that Received Higher Levels of Supervision/Detention than Expected by Race/Ethnicity

16

Low-Risk Youth Received Both Supervision and Services

Low-Risk Youth, High-Need on Supervision in Programs %

11 22 35 4 19 20 18 4

County % of Low-Risk Youth on Supervision in Programs

Tarrant 44 Travis 71 Victoria 91 Harris 80 Lubbock 43 Cameron 40 Dallas 55 El Paso 77

17

Low-Risk Youth Stayed Longer in Programs

MEDIAN NUMBER OF DAYS SPENT IN A PROGRAM

High-Risk Youth

77 112 69 104 118 135 124 133

County Low-Risk Youth

Tarrant 105 Travis 115 Victoria 125 Harris 75 Lubbock 167 Cameron 193 Dallas 94 El Paso 136

18

Youth Were Not Well Matched to Services

% of These Youth in Substance Abuse Program

2 27 12 32 25 23

County # of Youth Identified as Having a Substance Abuse Need at Referral

Tarrant 659 Travis 497 Victoria Harris 3,731 Lubbock 131 Cameron 287 Dallas 1,835 El Paso 518

19

Registry of Programs Lacked Clear Standards

• n What “Evidence-Based” Actually Entails

Functional Family Therapy Equine Therapy Midnight Basketball Drug Education Classes Aggression Replacement Training

20

Data Was Collected But Not Used to Track Fidelity and Outcomes, and to Hold Providers Accountable

Define Key Performance Measures and Collect Data Data Analysis by Key Demographic, Provider, and Community Variables Regularly Share Data, Develop Remediation Plans, Invest in What Works

21

Current State of the Field: Lessons Learned for State Policymakers and Juvenile Justice Leaders

Focus on reducing reliance on incarceration has been successful and warranted—keeping youth in the community whenever possible is the most cost- effective public safety strategy.

22

Despite the increased use of structured decision making tools, youth—particularly youth of color—are often not well matched to the appropriate level and type of supervision and services.

Current State of the Field: Lessons Learned for State Policymakers and Juvenile Justice Leaders

23

Most jurisdictions struggle to ensure that the services that youth receive are actually based on research, implemented with fidelity, and effective.

Current State of the Field: Lessons Learned for State Policymakers and Juvenile Justice Leaders

24

Resources alone are insufficient to improve public safety and outcomes for youth.

Current State of the Field: Lessons Learned for State Policymakers and Juvenile Justice Leaders

25

What doesn’t get measured, and acted upon, doesn’t get done.

Current State of the Field: Lessons Learned for State Policymakers and Juvenile Justice Leaders

26

States Should Align System Policies, Practices, and Funding With What Research Shows Works to Reduce Recidivism

1. 2. 3. 4. Base supervision, service, and resource allocation decisions on the results of validated risk and needs assessments Adopt and effectively implement programs and services demonstrated to reduce recidivism and improve other youth

• utcomes, and use

data to evaluate the results and direct system improvements Employ a coordinated approach across service systems to address youth’s needs and promote positive youth development Tailor system policies, programs, and supervision to reflect the distinct developmental needs

• f adolescents

27

Opportunities for Concrete State Policy, Practice and Funding Reforms

1. Divert all status and low-risk offenders from formal system involvement, including potentially arrest; adopt validated risk and needs screening tools to guide diversion decisions; and establish diversion initiatives that specifically focus on youth/communities of color. 2. Adopt a validated risk and need assessment to guide disposition and case planning decisions 3. Adopt a validated detention screening tool to guide detention decisions and eliminate the use of detention for youth that are not a risk to public safety or flight risk, including youth with behavioral health needs, family challenges, and use of detention as a sanction 4. Require that limited resources are used for programs and services that are research-based targeted at moderate/high risk youth, and establish ongoing quality assurance and data collection requirements to measure whether services are effective. 5. Restrict all forms of out-of-home placement for youth that are not high risk to reoffend, create incentive structures to promote research-based community alternatives, and reinvest cost savings into building community capacity.

28

Opportunities for Concrete State Policy, Practice and Funding Reforms (cont.)

6. Minimize extensive and prescriptive lengths of stay in facilities and on probation, and make supervision decisions based on ongoing assessments of risk reduction and treatment progress. 7. Establish dedicated, ongoing forums for cross-system collaboration to improve coordination and maximize available resources for youth and families involved in the juvenile justice, child welfare, behavioral health, education, and workforce development systems. 8. Focus probation on promoting youth behavior change while investing in research-based, non-punitive mechanisms for ensuring youth repair harm caused to victims/communities. 9. Require the adoption of incentive and graduated response systems and eliminate the use of

• ut of home placement solely due to a technical violation of the conditions of supervision.

10. Employ a developmentally appropriate approach to collateral consequences, including minimizing life-long education and employment restrictions, protecting the confidentiality of juvenile records, and enacting automatic sealing and expungement provisions.

29

Improving Outcomes for Youth Initiative: Data-Driven System Assessment and Improvement Process

Serve as staff to local leaders through a collaborative, consensus-based taskforce to identify goals and strategies for system improvement Leverages and builds upon past and current reform efforts Provides an objective, comprehensive, system wide analysis

• n performance,
• utcomes, and equity,

including case level data analysis Applies the research on what works to help identify

• pportunities for systemic

improvement through research-based, innovative policy, practice, and funding reforms Provide implementation support to promote long-term impact and sustainable change

30

The presentation was developed by members of The Council of State Governments Justice Center staff. The statements made reflect the views of the authors, and should not be considered the official position of The Council of State Governments Justice Center, the members of The Council of State Governments, or the funding agency supporting the work.

Join our distribution list to receive CSG Justice Center updates and announcements! www.csgjusticecenter.org/subscribe For more information on IOYouth, contact Nina Salomon at nsalomon@csg.org.