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

K-State Juvenile Justice Collective 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. QUICK START Juvenile Justice Reform and SB 367 Today, we will review three main ideas: Reform as process Kansas & SB 367 Updates, Questions & Concerns As we might expect, reform is not always straightforward and never happens Reform as overnight; it’s a process. process The state and juvenile justice processes Not only that, but juvenile justice reform involves lots of moving parts. Community-based prevention, immediate interventions, and Government is involved, and, in particular, we will look at the role of graduated sanctions community-based prevention, immediate interventions, and graduated Juvenile correctional facilities for serious sanctions — all fairly complex elements of the justice process. juvenile o ff enders

Using Kansas as an examples, here is a rough timeline of reform e ff orts in the • 1993-1995 
 past 25 years. Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, Kansas Youth Authority (KYA) and Juvenile Justice Authority (JJA) created with enactment of 1995 SB 312 • 1996 
 Prior to 1995, both CINCs and JOs were under the umbrella of Kansas Juvenile Justice Reform Act of 1996 (HB 2900), security, intake/assessment, secure facilities, parental involvement, transition plans Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services (SRS). In 1995, with the • 1997 
 enactment of SB 312, the Juvenile Justice Authority was created to provide a Amendment SB 69, to maximize community-based placements, created Kansas Advisory Group (KAG) to replace KYA. 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 sta ff 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 di ff erent 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 So… continuing our timeline, here you see some of the precursors to our • 2013 
 current rule of law, known as SB 367. In 2013, the then governor abolished Executive Reorganization Order (ERO) 42 abolished the JJA, transferring jurisdiction to KDOC. the JJA, transferring jurisdiction to Kansas Department of Corrections. • 2014 
 HB 2588 passed, restricting prosecution and placement practices, including provisions for CINCs • 2015 
 In 2014 and 2015, various House bills restricted prosecution and placement HB 2336 passed, requiring more rigorous assessments; Juvenile Justice Workgroup, in cooperation with PEW, developed recommendations for data-driven policies. practices, and a newly formed Juvenile Justice Workgroup, working with the • 2016 
 SB 367 Juvenile Justice Reform Act of 2016 passed. PEW Foundation, developed recommendations for data-driven policies.

This headline encapsulates the main thrust of SB 367 — to work toward the decarceration of youth. SB 367 2016 Kansas Juvenile Justice Reform Why now? Because… several problems with the system became impossible to ignore. Ine ff ective 54% of KS youth sent to out-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- o ff ense Inconsistent Justice by geography Disproportionate by minority status 25% had been convicted of misdemeanors only Supervision lacked uniformity Which increases risk of re-o ff ense

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 See Kansas Legislator Briefing Book 2017 • 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 o ff enses; 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 Here, bring to your attention excerpts from the language of SB 367, illustrating Key Language the “teeth” inserted into law. • 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

This chart summarizes a grid limiting the length of disposition at various levels of o ff enses. 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. National Juvenile Defender Center See Key Changes to the Kansas Juvenile Code: A Practical Guide • 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 o ff enders, departure sentences, alternative means of adjudication, juvenile fines/fees, terms for status o ff enses National Juvenile Defender Center Finally, this placement matrix defines the category of o ff enses and terms of commitment modified by SB 367. Violent O ff enders 1 is the most serious, what is called an “o ff -grid” felony, with a minimum commitment term of 60 months. National Juvenile Defender Center

As another example, Serious O ff enders 3 is specified to very strictly allow commitment to a secure facility ONLY if such o ff enders are assessed — with a rigorous instrument — as high-risk. The same is true with Chronic O ff enders. A Firearm Felony MAY consider commitment but is not mandated to do so. National Juvenile Defender Center Updates, Questions & Concerns According to 88 counties that reported data for 2018, 89% of youth successfully completed their IIP programs. 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