our charge
play

Our Charge The task force is hereby authorized and directed to - PDF document

ALABAMA JUVENILE JUSTICE TASK FORCE 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


  1. ALABAMA JUVENILE JUSTICE TASK FORCE 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.” 1

  2. 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 Agenda 1. Roundtable Findings Discussion 2. Follow-Up Data Analysis 3. Research Presentation 4. Lunch Break 5. Discussion of Research Principles/Policy Implications and Alabama Key Takeaways 2

  3. Stakeholder Roundtables Completed Completed Upcoming Roundtables Roundtables Roundtables  Detention June  Defense July directors 15 counsel 25, 26  Families TBD  DYS July July  Juvenile judges contracted 10 26 providers Diversion  July Aug. program DYS youth   Prosecutors TBD 12 17, 22 providers Detention   County July Aug. youth and  Crime Victims, commissioners 17 17, 30 staff Survivors and Sept. 26 July Advocates Youth and Aug.  21, Youth in  families 17 Aug.  Educators TBD facilities 17, 22, Aug. Sheriffs  30 23 July Mental  Probation  Aug. 25, 27, health officers 21 Aug. 8 providers Follow-Up Data Analysis Alabama Juvenile Justice Task Force September 6, 2017 3

  4. Data Follow-Up 7 On average, youth with court costs owe $221 per petition Average Total Court Costs Per Petition (Fines & Fees) $300 $250 $220 $221 $200 $150 $100 $50 $0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 8 4

  5. On average, youth with restitution owe $868 per petition Average Total Restitution Per Petition $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $1,029 $868 $500 $0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 9 18% of petitions have court costs ordered, increased from 7% of petitions in 2007 Percentage of Petitions with Court Costs vs. Restitution 50% 40% 30% 18% 20% 10% 7% 4% 2% 0% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Percentage of Petitions with Court Costs Percentage of Petitions with Restitution 10 5

  6. Court costs average $173 per truancy petition, even higher for misdemeanors Top 10 Offenses with Court Costs, 2016 % All Petitions Average Total Owed Offense with Court Costs in Court Costs Felony? (2016) Per Petition 1 CHINS / Truancy 15% $173 2 Unauthorized Use of A Vehicle 7% $195 ✓ 3 Unlawful Poss. of Marijuana – 2 nd 6% $240 4 Technical Violation / Delinquent 6% $198 5 Disorderly Conduct 6% $204 6 Harassment 6% $205 7 Illegal Poss. of Prescription Drug 5% $201 8 Assault – 3 rd 5% $331 9 Theft of Property – 2 rd 5% $185 ✓ 10 Harassment 3% $190 TOTAL 2,954 $219 11 Wide regional variation in average total court costs per petition Average Total Court Costs Per Petition Among Top 10 Counties in Complaints, 2016 % Youth % All Petitions Average Total Owed County Population with Court Costs in Court Costs (2015) (2016) Per Petition 1 Mobile 9% 15% $195 2 Jefferson 13% 0% $52 3 Madison 7% 10% $165 4 Montgomery 5% 4% $116 5 Baldwin 4% 9% $283 6 Morgan 3% 6% $236 7 Cullman 2% 1% $459 8 Talladega 2% 1% $46 9 Houston 2% 6% $269 10 Tuscaloosa 4% 3% $88 TOTAL 504,235 3,275 $221 12 6

  7. Four of the top 10 offenses with restitution costs are low level; many average near or over $1,000 per petition Top 10 Offenses with Restitution Costs, 2016 % All Petitions Average Total Owed Offense with Restitution in Restitution Felony? (2016) Per Petition 1 Burglary – 3 rd ✓ 17% $895 2 Criminal Mischief – 3 rd 15% $558 3 Unauthorized Use of A Vehicle 10% $417 ✓ 4 Theft of Property – 1 st 9% $1,788 ✓ 5 Criminal Mischief – 2 nd 9% $776 6 Criminal Mischief – 1 st 7% $1,224 ✓ 7 Theft of Property – 3 rd 7% $313 ✓ 8 Assault – 3 rd 5% $1,679 9 Theft of Property – 2 nd 3% $965 ✓ 10 Harassment 2% $674 TOTAL 575 $889 13 Wide regional variation in average total restitution per petition Average Total Restitution Per Petition Among Top 10 Counties in Complaints, 2016 % Youth % All Petitions Average Total Owed County Population with Restitution in Restitution (2015) (2016) Per Petition 1 Mobile 9% 18% $691 2 Jefferson 13% 8% $1,241 3 Madison 7% 0% $100 4 Montgomery 5% 10% $1,015 5 Baldwin 4% 5% $705 6 Morgan 3% 2% $1,031 7 Cullman 2% 1% $3,382 8 Talladega 2% 3% $507 9 Houston 2% 1% $958 10 Tuscaloosa 4% 3% $526 TOTAL 504,235 662 $868 14 7

  8. Most youth are unable to meet financial obligations, particularly for court costs Percentage of Court Costs Paid vs. Percentage of Restitution Paid 50% 40% 30% 20% 15% 15% 10% 6% 5% 0% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Court Costs Paid Restitution Paid 15 Data Follow-Up Key Takeaways • The percentage of petitions with court costs has more than doubled over the past decade, increasing from 7% of petitions in 2007 to 18% in 2017 – On average, youth with court costs owe $221 per petition, including fines and fees – Court costs for truancy average $173 per petition • Most youth are unable to pay court costs, as only about 5% of court costs are collected by the court • There is wide county variation in both the prevalence of court costs and the amounts ordered • On average, youth with restitution owe $868 per petition, but only 15% of restitution is collected by the court 16 8

  9. Overall Key Takeaways Drivers Analysis and System Assessment 17 Overall Key Takeaways: System Assessment Presentation 1 • Decision-making – State law requires court referral for certain school-based behaviors and mandates prosecution of parents in certain circumstances • Local interpretations of statue may vary and lead to disparate responses to similar school-based behaviors – There is variation across the state in which offenses are eligible for informal adjustments and what conditions are applied – Limited statutory criteria and local interpretation allow 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 18 9

  10. Overall Key Takeaways: System Assessment Presentation 1 • 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 grows 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 19 Overall Key Takeaways: System Assessment Presentation 1 • 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 adjustments 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 20 10

  11. Overall Key Takeaways: System Assessment Presentation 2 • Decision Making – Statute allows the court to impose any combination of dispositions or conditions for most youth – Disposition decision making is not informed by a risk and needs assessment statewide – The court has discretion to keep youth under its jurisdiction until they age out of the system, or for longer to repay financial obligations – Youth may be placed out-of-home or have any condition added for any violation of supervision – DYS is not required to use evidence-based services shown to reduce reoffending 21 Overall Key Takeaways: System Assessment Presentation 2 • Youth Flow – Probation dispositions and DYS commitments have declined more than 50% over the past decade – Racial disparities and gender disparities are present for all decision points and are largest for youth in the adult system – The median length of probation has more than doubled since 2009, despite the fact that the offense profile has not grown more serious • Nearly 1/3 of probation dispositions last longer than 3 years – Probation violations are growing as a share of DYS commitments and out-of-home diversion admissions – Most youth committed to DYS have not been given the opportunity to a non-residential DYS diversion prior to their first commitment – Out-of-home diversion programs cost the state 58% more than non- residential program on average – DYS out-of-home placements cost as much as $161,694 per youth per year, as much as 91 times the cost of probation 22 11

Recommend


More recommend