Using the Assessment Findings to Dive Headfirst into the Deep End - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

NO PLACE FOR KIDS Using the Assessment Findings to Dive Headfirst into the Deep End St. Louis City May 11, 2015 Prepared with Support From: Juvenile Justice Strategy Group

INTERVIEWS & SURVEYS DATA ANALYSES • All formal filings between • Interviewed almost 45 juvenile 2007 and April 2013, with justice stakeholders information on: including: • Demographics • Supervision Management • Offense severity • Law Enforcement • VOPs • Prosecuting Attorney • Risk and Needs scores • Public Defender • Prior referral history • Judiciary • Prior DYS history • Children’s Division • Prior services received • DYS representative • Zip Code • Residential Providers • Judicial Officer • Parents • DJO • Youth • Surveyed DJO’s, youth, and parents

The goal was to find potential drivers of unnecessary out-of-home placement through the lens of these core elements DEEP END CORE ELEMENTS COLLABORATION DATA DRIVEN RACIAL & ETHNIC EQUITY YOUTH WELL-BEING FAMILY ENGAGEMENT DEFENSE ADVOCACY

MAJOR THEMES This presentation will explore: • Dispositional Matrix is too broad • Great Data Capacity • Risk assessment receives very • Could improve data use little consideration Dispositional • Data sharing between • Technical violators have some Data Decision Making agencies/databases limited of the highest commitment rates • Missing Schools, Police • Juvenile Officer Role • Feedback from families or • Compliance focused youth has been minimal • More Mental Health Supervision Collaboration • Missing Faith and other Services needed community members • Family is Key to success • Not present at Review on Supervision Hearings • Need to reach/engage • Limited by time and budget Family difficult families Defense constraints • Family as asset or obstacle Engagement Advocacy • Not viewed as a zealous advocate for the youth 4

MAJOR THEMES This presentation will explore: • Dispositional Matrix is too broad • Great Data Capacity • Risk assessment receives very • Could improve data use little consideration Dispositional • Data sharing between • Technical violators have some Data Decision Making agencies/databases limited of the highest commitment rates • Missing Schools, Police • Juvenile Officer Role • Feedback from families or • Compliance focused youth has been minimal • More Mental Health Supervision Collaboration • Missing Faith and other Services needed community members • Family is Key to success • Not present at Review on Supervision Hearings • Need to reach/engage • Limited by time and budget Family difficult families Defense constraints • Family as asset or obstacle Engagement Advocacy • Not viewed as a zealous advocate for the youth 5

Dispositional Matrix OFFENSE GROUP 1 GROUP 2 GROUP 3 SEVERITY OFFENSES OFFENSES OFFENSES Status Offenses Class A, B, & C Municipal Ordinances/ Misdemeanors/ A* & B Risk Level Infractions Class C & D Felonies Felonies Actual: 0 A) A) Low Warn & Counsel Warn & Counsel B+) Restitution B) Restitution B) Restitution C+) Community Service Risk C) Community Service C) Community Service D+) Court Fees & Assessments Min: 0 D) Court Fees & Assessments D+) Court Fees & Assessments E) Supervision E) Supervision E) Supervision F) Day Treatment G) Intensive Supervision Max: 3 H) Court Residential Placement I) Commitment to DYS A) Moderate Warn & Counsel A) Warn & Counsel B+) Restitution Actual: 15 B) Restitution B) Restitution C+) Community Service Risk C) Community Service C+) Community Service D+) Court Fees & Assessments D) Court Fees & Assessments D+) Court Fees & Assessment E) Supervision Min: 0 E) Supervision E) Supervision F) Day Treatment F) Day Treatment G) Intensive Supervision Min: 0 H) Court Residential Placement Max: 58 I) Commitment to DYS Actual: 38 Max: 0 A) High Warn & Counsel B+) Restitution H) Court Residential Placement Actual: 27 B) Restitution C+) Community Service I) Commitment to DYS Risk C) Community Service D+) Court Fees & Assessments D) Court Fees & Assessments E) Supervision Min: 60 E) Supervision F) Day Treatment G) Intensive Supervision Max: 60 H) Court Residential Placement I) Commitment to DYS Actual: 132 Min: 0 Max: 285

Lots of Discretion 60 212 406

Risk Assessment “Minimal influence because it gives me so little information.” "After we’ve been working with them, I don’t necessarily know that the risk assessment is still a tool … I don’t necessarily think it plays any part in my recommendation." “It is a number on the report. The DJO never refers to it.”

Risk • 70% of placed youth were high risk Risk Score Breakdown by Disposition • No low risk youth were placed out of home Placed in the Community Out-of-Home Placement • But, we have very little low risk youth in general 3% 8% 13% 26 17% 56 44 60 • 20%-25% of informal youth were low risk 28% 209 • Should we be placing youth out of home if a recent risk assessment has not been 61% 453 completed? 70% 241 • What can we say about the 60 Moderate risk youth that were placed out of home? Low Moderate High Missing

Where are the Low Risk Youth? Moderate Low Risk Risk High Risk Informal 27% 67% 6% Probation 4% 66% 30% Placement 0% 20% 80%

What does this mean? • Is the Risk Assessment currently a useful tool? • Can the Risk Assessment tool be improved?

Dispositional Outcomes Disposition Type: January 2010 - April 2013 • Intensive/Specialized Supervision 23% • (n = 234) Supervision 42% (n = 426) • Out of Home 34% (n = 345) Note: This chart includes all cases that were adjudicated between January 2010 and April 2013.

Offenses Resulting in Out of Home Placement Offense Type Breakdown of Out-of-Home Placements • Violent Felony 13% 45 Technical Violation 33% • 116 Non-Violent Felony 38% 134 • Non-Person Misdemeanor 10% 35 6% 20 Person Misdemeanor Note: This chart includes placements between January 2010 and April 2013.

Over the past five years, there has been a steady increase in the use of informal options for delinquency and status referrals • Technical Violators Commitment Rate by Offense Type and Year have the Highest Felony Misdemeanor Technical Violation Placement Rates 80% • Through first four 60% months of 2013 placement rate is 40% much lower 20% • Placement Rate appears pretty stable 0% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 This graph shows the percentage of formal cases that were committed to DYS or an out of home placement. All formal cases that were adjudicated were included. 14

Technical Violations Out-of-Home Placements by Risk and Offense Type Low Moderate High Missing (No assessment within 60 days of disposition) 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Violent Felony Person Misdemeanor Technical Violation Non-Violent Felony Non-Person Misdemeanor Note: This chart includes placements between January 2010 and April 2013.

Technical Violations Number of Out-of-Home Placements by Risk and Offense Type Moderate High Missing (No assessment within 60 days of disposition) 80 82 73 60 40 39 27 20 24 19 14 13 11 12 8 7 7 1 1 7 1 1 4 0 Felony A Felony B Felony C Felony D Misdemeanor Technical Note: This chart includes placements between January 2010 and April 2013.

Technically Committed • Moderate Risk technical Out-of-Home Placement Rate by Risk, Offense, Felony History violators with a prior felony Moderate High are about as likely to be placed out of home as 100% Technical violators with a prior felony offense are about as likely to be placed as felony offenders with a prior felony. moderate risk felony offenders with a prior felony 80% * • High risk technical * 60% violators with no felony history are more likely to be placed than high risk 40% violent felony offenders with no prior felony history 20% • Should we treat technical 0% violators the same as No Prior Prior Fel. No Prior Prior Fel. No Prior Prior Fel. No Prior Prior Fel. No Prior Prior Fel. Fel. Fel. Fel. Fel. Fel. Felony offenders? Violent Felony Person Misdemeanor Technical Violation Non-Violent Felony Non-Person Misdemeanor

Going Deeper • Should these youth be placed out of home? • How can we prevent these youth from the NEED to be placed out of home? • Supervision practices