QUICK START Juvenile Justice Reform and SB 367 Today, we will review - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

K-State Juvenile Justice Collective

QUICK START

Juvenile Justice Reform and SB 367

Welcome to Quick Start! I’m Sue Williams, Project Director of Our Town Our

• Kids. For this session, I’ll be your tour guide, so to speak, through issues

related to juvenile justice reform.

Reform as process Kansas & SB 367 Updates, Questions & Concerns

Today, we will review three main ideas:

Reform as process

The state and juvenile justice processes Community-based prevention, immediate interventions, and graduated sanctions Juvenile correctional facilities for serious juvenile offenders

As we might expect, reform is not always straightforward and never happens

• vernight; it’s a process.

Not only that, but juvenile justice reform involves lots of moving parts. Government is involved, and, in particular, we will look at the role of community-based prevention, immediate interventions, and graduated sanctions — all fairly complex elements of the justice process.

• 1993-1995


Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, Kansas Youth Authority (KYA) and Juvenile Justice Authority (JJA) created with enactment of 1995 SB 312

• 1996


Juvenile Justice Reform Act of 1996 (HB 2900), security, intake/assessment, secure facilities, parental involvement, transition plans

• 1997


Amendment SB 69, to maximize community-based placements, created Kansas Advisory Group (KAG) to replace KYA.

Using Kansas as an examples, here is a rough timeline of reform efforts in the past 25 years. Prior to 1995, both CINCs and JOs were under the umbrella of Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services (SRS). In 1995, with the enactment of SB 312, the Juvenile Justice Authority was created to provide a separate entity to deal with juveniles between the ages of 10 and 17 who To demonstrate the radical change that came with the creation of JJA, here are a couple of illustrations. On the left is an image of a cottage-like structure that represented the most secure facility for youth during the 1970s, 80s, and

• 90s. It was a residential treatment center known as YCAT — the Youth Center

at Topeka. Many veteran juvenile justice professionals today will recall YCAT and have stories to share. For many years, there was not even a secure fence around it. When a child tried to “run,” the staff would gather up and literally So…August 2004. Disclaimer: I don’t know who the subjects in this photo

• are. But it is reminiscent of what I saw in August 2004. I was interviewing

incarcerated boys at that time — a different research project — and I was there during the transition from YCAT to the new facility. As I looked out from a third-story floor, this is what I saw: One boy, probably about 13, of very slight build, in an orange jumpsuit, just

• 2013


Executive Reorganization Order (ERO) 42 abolished the JJA, transferring jurisdiction to KDOC.

• 2014


HB 2588 passed, restricting prosecution and placement practices, including provisions for CINCs

• 2015


HB 2336 passed, requiring more rigorous assessments; Juvenile Justice Workgroup, in cooperation with PEW, developed recommendations for data-driven policies.

• 2016


SB 367 Juvenile Justice Reform Act of 2016 passed.

So… continuing our timeline, here you see some of the precursors to our current rule of law, known as SB 367. In 2013, the then governor abolished the JJA, transferring jurisdiction to Kansas Department of Corrections. In 2014 and 2015, various House bills restricted prosecution and placement practices, and a newly formed Juvenile Justice Workgroup, working with the PEW Foundation, developed recommendations for data-driven policies.

2016 Kansas Juvenile Justice Reform

SB 367 This headline encapsulates the main thrust of SB 367 — to work toward the decarceration of youth. Why now?

Ineffective

54% of KS youth sent to

• ut-of-home placements

were not successfully discharged. 42% sent to JCF were incarcerated again within 3 years of release 80% of youth in out-of- home placements were at low to medium risk Which increases risk of re-

• ffense

Because… several problems with the system became impossible to ignore.

Inconsistent

Justice by geography Disproportionate by minority status 25% had been convicted

• f misdemeanors only

Supervision lacked uniformity Which increases risk of re-offense

Unsustainable

More than 2/3 of total JJ budget spent on juvenile prisons and out-of-home placements Less than 1% was committed to evidence-based community rehabilitation programs Almost $100,000 for one youth for one year in JCF $50,000 for treatment facility; 
 $5,000 for community supervision

SB 367

• Juveniles in custody


Narrows authorities and conditions, requires training

• Immediate Interventions and Community-based Programs


Requires immediate intervention, juvenile rights, community-based alternatives to formal charges; requires consultation with Supreme Court

• Criteria for Detention and Alternatives


Requires risk/needs assessment and strict standards for detention, residential, and JCF placement; requires case plan and transitional programs

• Adult Prosecution


Limits extended prosecution to most serious offenses; raises age from 12 to 14

• Implementation


Establishes 19-member Kansas Juvenile Justice Oversight Committee; includes training for professionals, including judges, CAs/DAs, defense attys; requires Atty Gen to collaborate with LEA and KSBE Kansas Legislator Briefing Book 2017

See Kansas Legislator Briefing Book 2017 Key Language

• Court shall not order removal of a child from parent’s custody without

assessment and probable cause

• No youth shall be placed in a juvenile detention center solely due to…
• Community-based alternatives to detention shall include, but not be

limited to:

• The court must receive a post-adjudication and predisposition risk/

needs assessment…

• Dispositions must run concurrently…
• Juvenile Court jurisdiction terminates…, and jurisdiction may not be

extended Kansas Legislator Briefing Book 2017

Here, bring to your attention excerpts from the language of SB 367, illustrating the “teeth” inserted into law.

National Juvenile Defender Center

This chart summarizes a grid limiting the length of disposition at various levels

• f offenses.

National Juvenile Defender Center

And this one displays probation limits. We will provide materials for you to review; much of what you see here was put together by the National Juvenile Defender Center.

• Juvenile Sentencing Alternatives


Placement with parent; probation; detention limits

• Earned Time Credit on Probation


Credit for each month of compliance, substantial compliance

• Probation Graduated Responses


Limits use of technical violation, provides consistent system for graduated responses, limits probation revocation

• Reintegration Plans for Youth Placed Outside the Home


Plan must be part of disposition hearing or within 15 days

• Commitment for Youth


The court may only commit a youth to a JCF if the court finds …(a) significant risk of harm; (b) firearm felony

• Defines conditional release, chronic offenders, departure sentences, alternative

means of adjudication, juvenile fines/fees, terms for status offenses National Juvenile Defender Center

See Key Changes to the Kansas Juvenile Code: A Practical Guide

National Juvenile Defender Center

Finally, this placement matrix defines the category of offenses and terms of commitment modified by SB 367. Violent Offenders 1 is the most serious, what is called an “off-grid” felony, with a minimum commitment term of 60 months.

National Juvenile Defender Center

As another example, Serious Offenders 3 is specified to very strictly allow commitment to a secure facility ONLY if such offenders are assessed — with a rigorous instrument — as high-risk. The same is true with Chronic Offenders. A Firearm Felony MAY consider commitment but is not mandated to do so. Updates, Questions & Concerns

63% decline in youth confinement 29% drop in juvenile arrests $30 million shifted for evidence-based programs 63% to 88% of youth in EDP completed successfully 99 of 105 counties now operate Immediate Intervention Programs

According to 88 counties that reported data for 2018, 89% of youth successfully completed their IIP programs.

Questions & Concerns

• Reforms expect to yield $72 million for reinvestment by
• 2020. How will these funds be used?
• How can local communities coordinate with state
• fficials?
• Service gaps and funding needs remain unanswered
• KS legislature recently reappropriated $6 million from EBP

fund to Dept of Health & Environment. Why?

• Vigilance in oversight will be crucial to sustainability

U r b a n E t h n

• c

e n t r i s m One of the concerns relates to what we referred to earlier as “Justice by Geography.” In this case, I am reminded of what we in criminology often encounter as Urban Ethnocentrism. That is, almost everything we know about criminal justice in general, including juvenile justice, is based on studies, stats, and facts gathered in urban areas. I think we can all agree that context, circumstance, culture, and practices in a places like we see on the right may be starkly different from those we see in places like that on the left.

SB367

So… this brings us to OTOK and our partner sites. (explain) As examples… Average pop density for KS = 35.6 Riley County = 121 Sedgwick = 515 Wyandotte = 1,080 In conclusion…

• SB 367 grew from problem

recognition and concern

• SB 367 has seriously curtailed out-
• f-home placement for youth
• SB 367 enactment is saving

significant state dollars

• Reinvestment funds and

sustainability remain uncertain

• Justice by Geography remains a

serious concern

• OTOK and partner sites hold great

potential to problem solve

It takes a village

Thank you for your time and attention, and for your interest in our kids.

Our Town Our Kids (OTOK) is a funded project awarded by Kansas Department of Corrections Kansas Advisory Group Title II Funds Provided by Office of Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention Co-Sponsors

• urtownourkids.org
• L. Susan Williams, Ph.D., Project Director

lswilli@ksu.edu Gregory Paul, Ph.D., Project Manager gregpaul@ksu.edu

K-State Juvenile Justice Collaborative

Kansas State University Manhattan KS Elaine Johannes, Ph.D. Kansas State University ejohanne@ksu.edu Bruce Chladny, M.S. K-State Extension & Research bchladny@ksu.edu Michael Walker, M.S., Docking Institute Fort Hays State University mwalker@fhsu.edu April N. Terry, Ph.D., Policy Fellow Fort Hays State University anterry2@fhsu.edu Jian Sun, Ph.D., Docking Institute Fort Hays State University jsun@fhsu.edu Luis Montelongo, M.B.A., Docking Institute Fort Hays State University ldmontelongo@fhsu.edu

Graduate Research Assistants Mari-Esther Edwards, M.A. Kansas State University mariedwards09@ksu.edu Lora Kirmer Kansas State University kirmerlora@ksu.edu McKenzie Cox Kansas State University mlcox@ksu.edu Photo Credits

• Dr. Sue Photos

K-State Juvenile Justice Collaborative Music Credits