RAISING THE AGE OF JUVENILE JURISDICTION Nov. 29, 2012 IN ILLINOIS - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
raising the age of
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

RAISING THE AGE OF JUVENILE JURISDICTION Nov. 29, 2012 IN ILLINOIS - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Jun 17, 2023 100 likes •788 views

RAISING THE AGE OF JUVENILE JURISDICTION Nov. 29, 2012 IN ILLINOIS AGENDA AGENDA BACKGROUND METHODS LEGAL LANDSCAPE EFFECTS OF RAISING THE AGE (MISDEMEANORS) POTENTIAL IMPACT OF RAISING THE AGE (FELONIES) BACKGROUND

slide-1
SLIDE 1
  • Nov. 29, 2012

RAISING THE AGE OF JUVENILE JURISDICTION IN ILLINOIS

slide-2
SLIDE 2

AGENDA

slide-3
SLIDE 3

 BACKGROUND  METHODS  LEGAL LANDSCAPE  EFFECTS OF RAISING THE AGE (MISDEMEANORS)  POTENTIAL IMPACT OF RAISING THE AGE (FELONIES)

AGENDA

slide-4
SLIDE 4

BACKGROUND

slide-5
SLIDE 5

 Public Act 095-1031 (Raise the Age – Misdemeanor)

  • 17-year-old misdemeanants under juvenile court jurisdiction
  • Provided for analysis of the impact of the change
  • Effective January 1, 2010
  • Public Act 096-1199 (Commission Report) reassigned report and

recommendations to IJJC effective January 1, 2011

 “Study the impact of, develop timelines, and propose a funding structure to accommodate the expansion of the jurisdiction of the Illinois Juvenile Court to include youth age 17 under the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987”

  • 20 ILCS 505/17a-9(a)(6)

BACKGROUND

slide-6
SLIDE 6

METHODS

slide-7
SLIDE 7

 Legal Research  Best Practices/Youth Development  Data Requests  Practitioner Interviews

METHODS

slide-8
SLIDE 8

 Legal Research  Best Practices/Youth Development  Data Requests

  • Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts
  • Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority
  • Illinois Department of Commerce
  • Census 2010 State Repository
  • Illinois Department of Corrections
  • Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice
  • Juvenile Management Information System
  • University of Illinois, Center for Prevention Research and Development

 Practitioner Interviews

METHODS

slide-9
SLIDE 9

 Legal Research  Best Practices/Youth Development  Data Requests  Practitioner Interviews

  • 12-county Sample
  • Narrative Responses
  • Law Enforcement
  • Prosecutors and Defenders
  • Probation Officers
  • Juvenile Detention Centers
  • Adult Jails

METHODS

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Q: WHAT ARE THE DEVELOPMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS OF 17-YEAR-OLDS?

slide-11
SLIDE 11

AGE-CRIME CURVE

What makes juveni nile offenders different from adul ult offend nders? Trend nds & Issue ues in Crime and Criminal al Justice no. . 409 Kelly Richards ISSN 1836-2206 Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, February 2011

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Q: WHAT ASPECTS OF JUVENILE JURISDICTION ARE UNIQUE?

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Juve venil nile Adult lt Parental Notification of Arrest No Juvenile Officer to Safeguard Youth No Parental Summons/Accountability No Parent Obligation or Standing Detained with Age Peers General Population Option of DCFS Resolution Unlikely Juvenile Court Expertise: Judges, prosecutors, defenders, probation

  • fficers, detention staff

High Volume of Cases: Youth expertise unnecessary Indeterminate Sentencing Determinate Sentencing Rehabilitation Purpose + Accountability Incapacitation and Deterrence Focus Confidential Public Record Decisions consider risk screenings and social history Incomplete information

DELINQUENCY VS. CRIMINAL COURT

slide-14
SLIDE 14

 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

  • Task Force findings based on comprehensive review of every

published or government-conducted study on transfer policies

 34% more likely to be arrested if youth in the adult system  36 times more likely to commit suicide “[T]o the extent that transfer policies are implemented to reduce violent or other criminal behavior, available evidence indicates that they do more harm than good . . . the use of transfer laws and strengthened transfer policies is counterproductive to reducing juvenile violence and enhancing public safety.”

“Effects on Violence of Laws and Policies Facilitating the Transfer of Youth from the Juvenile to the Adult Justice System: A Report on Recommendations of the Task Force on Community Preventive Services” MWMR (November 2007)

YOUTH IN ADULT COURT: RECIDIVISM AND DETERRENCE

slide-15
SLIDE 15

 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

  • Task Force findings based on comprehensive review of every

published or government-conducted study on transfer policies

 34% more likely to be arrested if youth in the adult system  36 times more likely to commit suicide “[T]o the extent that transfer policies are implemented to reduce violent or other criminal behavior, available evidence indicates that they do more harm than good . . . the use of transfer laws and strengthened transfer policies is counterproductive to reducing juvenile violence and enhancing public safety.”

“Effects on Violence of Laws and Policies Facilitating the Transfer of Youth from the Juvenile to the Adult Justice System: A Report on Recommendations of the Task Force on Community Preventive Services” MWMR (November 2007)

YOUTH IN ADULT COURT: RECIDIVISM AND DETERRENCE

slide-16
SLIDE 16

YOUTH IN ADULT COURT: RECIDIVISM AND DETERRENCE

 June 2010 Bulletin, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)

  • Compiles results of several very large studies of youth in adult court
slide-17
SLIDE 17

YOUTH IN ADULT COURT: RECIDIVISM AND DETERRENCE

 June 2010 Bulletin, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)

  • Compiles results of several very large studies of youth in adult court
  • Example study: Lanza-Kaduce (2005)
  • 950 youth offenders (475 matched pairs)
  • Youth matched by 8 variables: geography, age, gender, race, number of

previous juvenile referrals, most serious prior offense, offense, and number of charges

  • Offense Seriousness (12 variables): prior juvenile referrals, multiple

charges at arrest, multiple incidents involved in the case, charge consolidation, legal problems during case processing, gang involvement, codefendants or accomplices, property loss or damage, victim injury, use

  • f weapons, felony charges, and the presence of mitigating and

aggravating factors

  • 40% more likely to reoffend as adults (persistence of criminal career) if

sent through the adult system

slide-18
SLIDE 18

 June 2010 Bulletin, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)

  • 6 total studies - between 494 and 5,476 youth in each

 Every single study showed higher recidivism in adult system – even when youth was given probation and not incarcerated  “Laws that make it easier to transfer youth to the adult criminal court system have little or no general deterrent effect, meaning they do not prevent youth from engaging in criminal behavior.”  “Youth transferred to the adult system are more likely to be rearrested and to reoffend than youth who committed similar crimes, but were retained in the juvenile justice system.”

Richard E. Redding, Juvenile Transfer Laws: An Effective Deterrent to Delinquency? OJJDP Bulletin (June 2010)

YOUTH IN ADULT COURT: RECIDIVISM AND DETERRENCE

slide-19
SLIDE 19

 June 2010 Bulletin, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)

  • 6 total studies - between 494 and 5,476 youth in each

 Every single study showed higher recidivism in adult system – even when youth was given probation and not incarcerated  “Laws that make it easier to transfer youth to the adult criminal court system have little or no general deterrent effect, meaning they do not prevent youth from engaging in criminal behavior.”  “Youth transferred to the adult system are more likely to be rearrested and to reoffend than youth who committed similar crimes, but were retained in the juvenile justice system.”

Richard E. Redding, Juvenile Transfer Laws: An Effective Deterrent to Delinquency? OJJDP Bulletin (June 2010)

YOUTH IN ADULT COURT: RECIDIVISM AND DETERRENCE

slide-20
SLIDE 20

 June 2010 Bulletin, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)  Why stark differences in recidivism?

  • Felony stigma
  • Feelings of injustice
  • Fraternization with adults
  • Incarceration trauma
  • Lack of rehabilitation focus
  • Deemphasis on family support
  • Loss of employment opportunities
  • Decrease in lifelong earning potential

YOUTH IN ADULT COURT: RECIDIVISM AND DETERRENCE

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Q: WHAT WAS THE IMPACT OF RAISING THE AGE FOR MISDEMEANANTS?

slide-22
SLIDE 22

 ANTICIPATED IMPACT  ACTUAL EFFECT

  • ARREST
  • PETITION
  • ADJUDICATION
  • PROBATION
  • DETENTION
  • INCARCERATION

SYSTEM IMPACT

slide-23
SLIDE 23

 Based on most recent arrest data at the time (2009)

ANTICIPATED IMPACT

slide-24
SLIDE 24

 Based on most recent arrest data at the time (2009)  +38.4%

ANTICIPATED IMPACT

slide-25
SLIDE 25

ARRESTS

slide-26
SLIDE 26

NUMBER OF 17-YEAR-OLD ARRESTS SINCE 2005

5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Felony Unknown Adult Misdemeanor Juvenile Misdemeanor (optional reporting)

RTA

Source: ICJIA

slide-27
SLIDE 27

NUMBER OF 17-YEAR-OLD ARRESTS SINCE 2005

5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Felony Unknown Adult Misdemeanor Juvenile Misdemeanor (optional reporting)

  • 25%
  • 41%
  • 52%

RTA

Source: ICJIA

slide-28
SLIDE 28

NUMBER OF 17-YEAR-OLD ARRESTS SINCE 2009

5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Felony Unknown Adult Misdemeanor Juvenile Misdemeanor (optional reporting)

  • 13%
  • 37%
  • 41%

RTA

Source: ICJIA

slide-29
SLIDE 29

PETITIONS

slide-30
SLIDE 30
  • 5,000

10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Cook Petitions AOIC Northern (w/o Cook) Petitions Central Petitions Southern Petitions

STATEWIDE JUVENILE PETITIONS 2005-2011

RTA

Source: AOIC, ICJIA

slide-31
SLIDE 31
  • 5,000

10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Cook Petitions AOIC Northern (w/o Cook) Petitions Central Petitions Southern Petitions

STATEWIDE JUVENILE PETITIONS 2005-2011

RTA

Source: AOIC, ICJIA

slide-32
SLIDE 32
  • 5,000

10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Cook Petitions AOIC Northern (w/o Cook) Petitions Central Petitions Southern Petitions

STATEWIDE JUVENILE PETITIONS 2005-2011

RTA +3.1%

Source: AOIC, ICJIA

slide-33
SLIDE 33

PROPORTION OF JUVENILE PETITIONS 2011 CASELOAD

Traffic, Ordinance Violation, Conservation Criminal Other Civil Civil Law Abuse/Neglect and Delinquency

0.9%

Source: AOIC

slide-34
SLIDE 34

ADJUDICATIONS

slide-35
SLIDE 35

STATEWIDE DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATIONS 2005-2010

  • 1,000

2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Northern (w/o Cook) Central South

RTA

Source: AOIC, ICJIA

slide-36
SLIDE 36

STATEWIDE DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATIONS 2005-2010

  • 1,000

2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Northern (w/o Cook) Central South

RTA

Source: AOIC, ICJIA

  • 7%
slide-37
SLIDE 37

JUVENILE PROBATION

slide-38
SLIDE 38
  • 5,000

10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 Other Administrative Informal Continued Supervision Standard

JUVENILE PROBATION CASELOAD SINCE 1995

RTA

  • 3%

Source: AOIC, ICJIA

slide-39
SLIDE 39
  • 5,000

10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 Other Administrative Informal Continued Supervision Standard

JUVENILE PROBATION CASELOAD SINCE 1995

RTA

Source: AOIC, ICJIA

slide-40
SLIDE 40
  • 2,000

4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Other Administrative Informal Continued Supervision Standard

JUVENILE PROBATION CASELOAD 2005-2011

RTA

Source: AOIC, ICJIA

slide-41
SLIDE 41
  • 2,000

4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Other Administrative Informal Continued Supervision Standard

JUVENILE PROBATION CASELOAD 2005-2011

RTA

  • 3%

Source: AOIC, ICJIA

slide-42
SLIDE 42

JUVENILE DETENTION

slide-43
SLIDE 43
  • 200

400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 Capacity Average Daily Population

POPULATION TREND, STATEWIDE JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS

Source: JMIS, NCCD

RTA

slide-44
SLIDE 44
  • 200

400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 Capacity Average Daily Population

POPULATION TREND, STATEWIDE JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS

Source: JMIS, NCCD

RTA

slide-45
SLIDE 45

DETENTION CENTERS AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION TREND BY REGION

  • 100

200 300 400 500 600 Cook Other Northern Central Southern

Source: JMIS, NCCD, CCB

RTA

slide-46
SLIDE 46
  • 100

200 300 400 500 600 Cook Other Northern Central Southern

DETENTION CENTERS AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION TREND BY REGION

Source: JMIS, NCCD, CCB

RTA

  • 33%
slide-47
SLIDE 47

DETENTION CENTERS AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION TREND BY REGION

  • 100

200 300 400 500 600 Cook Other Northern Central Southern

Source: JMIS, NCCD, CCB

RTA

slide-48
SLIDE 48

REGIONAL DETENTION CENTERS POPULATION TREND SINCE 2006

  • 50

100 150 200 250 300 Other Northern Central Southern

Source: JMIS

RTA

slide-49
SLIDE 49

REGIONAL DETENTION CENTERS POPULATION TREND SINCE 2006

  • 50

100 150 200 250 300 Other Northern Central Southern

Source: JMIS

RTA

  • 24%
  • 22%
  • 29%
slide-50
SLIDE 50

REGIONAL DETENTION CENTERS POPULATION TREND SINCE 2009

  • 50

100 150 200 250 300 Other Northern Central Southern

Source: JMIS

RTA

  • 03%
  • 14%
  • 12%
slide-51
SLIDE 51

REGIONAL DETENTION CENTER POPULATION AND CAPACITY

  • 100

200 300 400 500 600 Cook Other Northern Central Southern 9/1/11-8/31/12 Capacity

Source: JMIS, IJJC

slide-52
SLIDE 52
  • 20

40 60 80 100 120 9/1/11-8/31/12 Capacity

VARIANCE, REGIONAL DETENTION CENTER POPULATION AND CAPACITY

Source: JMIS, IJJC

slide-53
SLIDE 53
  • 20

40 60 80 100 120 9/1/11-8/31/12 Capacity

VARIANCE, REGIONAL DETENTION CENTER POPULATION AND CAPACITY

104% 33%

Source: JMIS, IJJC

slide-54
SLIDE 54

JUVENILE INCARCERATION

slide-55
SLIDE 55

IDJJ FACILITY ADMISSIONS FY2003-2011

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Delinquent Court Evaluation Technical Parole Violator

Source: IDJJ

RTA

slide-56
SLIDE 56

IDJJ MISDEMEANOR COURT ADMISSIONS BY AGE GROUP

50 100 150 200 250 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 16 and Under 17 Over 17

Source: IDJJ

RTA

slide-57
SLIDE 57

IDJJ POPULATION FY03-FY11

200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 DJJ End of FY Population

Source: IDJJ

  • 02%

RTA

slide-58
SLIDE 58

 ARREST

  • -41% Statewide, 17yo misdemeanor arrests (2011) (unreliable)
  • -13% Statewide, 17yo adult felony arrests (2011)

 PETITION

  • +03% Statewide, all ages (2011)

 ADJUDICATION

  • -07% Statewide, all ages (2010) (Cook not reporting)

 JUVENILE PROBATION

  • -03% Statewide, all ages (2011)

 JUVENILE DETENTION

  • -20% Statewide, all ages (last 12 mo.); -09% non-Cook, -33% Cook

 INCARCERATION

  • -02% Statewide, all ages, IDJJ (FY11)
  • -15% Statewide, 17yo adult felony admissions to IDOC (FY09-FY11)

SUMMARY: SYSTEM DATA SINCE 2010

slide-59
SLIDE 59

PRACTITIONER EXPERIENCES

slide-60
SLIDE 60

 Law Enforcement

  • Police department (largest city)
  • Sheriff’s office (investigations)

 Pretrial Detention

  • Sheriff’s office (county jail)
  • Detention Center

 Court Practitioners

  • Court Services
  • Prosecutors
  • Defenders
  • Probation

 State Corrections

ENTITIES IN INTERVIEW SAMPLE

slide-61
SLIDE 61

 Prosecutors

  • Training
  • Wide range of practices
  • Some wrote policies, trained law enforcement
  • Most thought there was not enough guidance by the state
  • Increasing/reducing charges
  • Most mentioned difficulty in rerouting case to/from juvenile court
  • Some very concerned about lack of transfer procedures and police-driven

charging decisions

  • Some had no implementation issues: cases come out as they come in
  • Adult misdemeanors as plea bargain

INTERVIEWS

slide-62
SLIDE 62

 Probation

  • Generally supportive
  • Concerned over caseloads and available services
  • Have been able to handle influx
  • Concern over availability of community-based programs after state

budget cuts, some providers are disappearing

INTERVIEWS

slide-63
SLIDE 63

 Detention

  • Early disputes between sheriff, police, and detention about where

youth should go, when, and who should take youth

  • Custody
  • Budgetary
  • Some youth spending time in adult lockup before transfer, need to

avoid this

  • Detention issues minimized because these are misdemeanants

INTERVIEWS

slide-64
SLIDE 64

CONCLUSION

slide-65
SLIDE 65

 Raising the age

  • is consistent with legal trends
  • is consistent with adolescent development and behavior
  • is an efficient use of juvenile court resources
  • improves public safety
  • decreases long-term costs
  • did not overwhelm the juvenile justice system

 Experience in Illinois

  • Overwhelmingly positive reaction
  • Tracking impacts is key
  • Practitioner workgroup to address implementation questions as they

arise

slide-66
SLIDE 66

Contact: Stephanie Kollmann 312.503.1479 kollmann@nlaw. northwestern.edu

slide-67
SLIDE 67