IMPROVING OUTCOMES, EQUITY, AND THE EFFICIENT USE OF RESOURCES FOR YOUTH IN ALAMEDA COUNTY’S JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM Josh Weber, Deputy Director, Corrections and Reentry
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 AK ME VT NH WA MT ND MN WI MI NY MA RI ID WY SD IA IL IN OH PA NJ CT OR NV UT NE MO KY WV MD DE CA AZ CO KS AR TN VA NC NM OK LA MS AL SC TX GA HI FL 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 Criminal History Two Closer to and Secure and Prison Home Study Confinement Data Admission Data Cohorts • Pre-reform • 899,101 records • 408,312 records cohort: 27,131 • 452,751 juveniles • 242,541 juveniles juveniles • Dispositions and • Arrests and • Post-reform secure releases incarcerations cohort: 31,371 juveniles 8
Community Supervision is a Better Public Safety Strategy than Incarceration One-Year Probability of Rearrest Released from State- Supervised in the Run Secure Facilities 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- Supervised in the Run Secure Facilities Community 3x more likely to commit a felony when recidivating 10
Texas Invested Significant Resources into Community Supervision and Services FY2005 FY2012 % Change Expenditures adjusted for $4,337 $7,304 68 inflation – to 2014 dollars 11
Rearrest Rates Were Comparable Despite Resource Investments Pre-Reform Study Group Post-Reform Study Group Intervention Type One-Year Probability of Rearrest One-Year Probability of Rearrest 41% State incarceration 41% Skill-Based Program 29% 27% Treatment Program 28% 30% Surveillance Program 31% 29% Secure County Placement 33% 34% Non-Secure County Placement 35% 35% No Intervention 33% 32% 12
Youth Consistently Received Higher Levels of Supervision than Warranted Based on their Risk Level 57% 63% 79% 43% 37% 21% Diversion Expected Deferment Expected Probation Expected (N=6,625) (N=5,639) (N=4,373) Diverted Not Diverted Deferred Not Deferred Probated Not Probated 13
Youth were Detained at Far Higher Rates than Warranted Percent of Cases Where Detention was Expected Percent Detained in Cases Where Detention Not Expected 43% 9% 91% 57% Expected Not Expected (N=1,596) (N=15,344) Not Detained Detained 14
Both Low and Higher Risk Youth Received Higher Levels of Supervision than Warranted Percent of Cases with Points Over Expected Levels of Supervision by Risk Level Low Risk 23% 27% 34% 16% (N=8,840) High Risk 25% 12% 13% 50% (N=2,572) Zero 1 to 2 3 to 5 6 or more 15
Black Youth Consistently Received Higher Levels of Supervision than Warranted Compared to their Peers Percent of Cases that Received Higher Levels of Supervision/Detention than Expected by Race/Ethnicity White 22% 26% 28% 24% Hispanic 29% 22% 24% 25% Black 19% 17% 29% 35% Zero 1 to 2 points 3 to 5 points 6 or more points 16
Low-Risk Youth Received Both Supervision and Services County % of Low-Risk Youth on Supervision Low-Risk Youth, High-Need on in Programs Supervision in Programs % Tarrant 44 11 Travis 71 22 Victoria 91 35 Harris 80 4 Lubbock 43 19 Cameron 40 20 Dallas 55 18 El Paso 77 4 17
Low-Risk Youth Stayed Longer in Programs MEDIAN NUMBER OF DAYS SPENT IN A PROGRAM County Low-Risk Youth High-Risk Youth Tarrant 105 77 Travis 115 112 Victoria 125 69 Harris 75 104 Lubbock 167 118 Cameron 193 135 Dallas 94 124 El Paso 136 133 18
Youth Were Not Well Matched to Services # of Youth Identified as Having a % of These Youth in Substance County Substance Abuse Need at Referral Abuse Program Tarrant 659 2 Travis 497 27 Victoria 0 0 Harris 3,731 12 Lubbock 131 32 Cameron 287 25 Dallas 1,835 23 El Paso 518 0 19
Registry of Programs Lacked Clear Standards on 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 Regularly Share Data, Data Analysis Develop by Key Remediation Define Key Demographic, Plans, Invest in Performance Provider, and What Works Measures and Community Collect Data Variables 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
Current State of the Field: Lessons Learned for State Policymakers and Juvenile Justice Leaders 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. 23
Current State of the Field: Lessons Learned for State Policymakers and Juvenile Justice Leaders Most jurisdictions struggle to ensure that the services that youth receive are actually based on research, implemented with fidelity, and effective. 24
Current State of the Field: Lessons Learned for State Policymakers and Juvenile Justice Leaders Resources alone are insufficient to improve public safety and outcomes for youth. 25
Current State of the Field: Lessons Learned for State Policymakers and Juvenile Justice Leaders What doesn’t get measured, and acted upon, doesn’t get done. 26
States Should Align System Policies, Practices, and Funding With What Research Shows Works to Reduce Recidivism 1. 2. 3. 4. Base supervision, Adopt and effectively Employ a coordinated Tailor system policies, service, and resource implement programs approach across programs, and allocation decisions on and services service systems to supervision to reflect the results of validated demonstrated to address youth’s needs the distinct risk and needs reduce recidivism and and promote positive developmental needs assessments improve other youth youth development of adolescents outcomes , and use data to evaluate the results and direct system improvements 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
Recommend
More recommend
