Transcript Lessons Learned
Finance Reform Workgroup
OCYF Region Meeting
June 11, 2013 Juvenile Justice System
Philosophical
Basis for the Operation of
Juvenile Justice
JJ Mandate / Goals:
The protection of the community
The imposition of accountability for offenses committed
The development of competencies to enable children to become responsible and productive members of the community
Community Protection
The process of contributing to safe communities through prevention, supervision, and control.
Identify the Risk Manage the Risk Minimize the Risk
Community Protection
, continued …
In order to know which youth can be reasonably managed in the community, juvenile probation must assess the safety risks posed by the juvenile through a review of the youth’s offense history, if any, and other factors that may point to continued delinquent behavior.
A clear understanding of the risks a juvenile poses to public safety helps probation officers and the court make decisions about the setting and the structure required to keep the community safe. It also guides decisions regarding which risk factors to target, and how intensively.
Community Protection
, continued … ►
Maintaining the youth in the community also depends on the availability of a wide range of treatment, supervision and control options.
►
For those posing the least risk, the response might be diversion, consent decree or informal probation. Those assessed at moderate risk levels may be safely maintained in the community but under more intensive supervision and with more structure. Commitment to a physically secure facility is reserved for the highest risk offenders.
Accountability
Juvenile offenders know and understand:
The wrongfulness of their actions The impact of the crime Their responsibility for causing harm
► ►
Accountability
, continued
The Juvenile Act and the Crime Victims Act also give crime victims the opportunity to be active participants in the juvenile justice process and be viewed as clients of the system
Victim Restoration:
Victim Impact Statements
Victim Notifications
Home pass notifications
Input in Decision Making
Accountability
, continued
Accountability measures are designed to contribute directly to victim restoration. Whenever possible, the juvenile justice system requires the participation of offenders in accountability-promoting processes:
Restitution Community Service Victims Compensation Fund Victim/Community Awareness Curriculum Apologies
Competency Development is…
►
The process by which juvenile offenders
acquire the knowledge and skills that make it possible for them to live productively, pro socially, and lawfully in their communities.
Competency Domains:
Pro-Social
Academic Workforce Development Independent Living Moral Reasoning
Competency Development
, continued
Pro-Social Skills:
Problem solving, impulse control
Goal:
Better social interactions and problem solving, reduced conflict
Academic Skills:
Study and learning skills, basic reading, writing and math
Goal:
Catching up in school, advancing in school, acquiring a diploma or GED
Workforce Development Skills:
Getting a job, keeping a job, achieving a promotion, technological skills
Goal:
Economic self-sufficiency
Competency Development
, continued
Independent Living Skills:
Budgeting, housing, health insurance, basic living
Goal:
Self-sufficient living
Moral Reasoning Skills:
“Right thinking,” understanding how thinking and values affect behavior
Goals:
Integrating the difference between right and wrong, making the right decisions for the right reasons
JJSES: Juvenile Justice System Enhancement
Statement of Purpose
We dedicate ourselves to working in partnership to enhance the capacity of Pennsylvania’s juvenile justice system to achieve its balanced and restorative justice mission by:
Employing evidence-based practices, with fidelity, at every stage of the juvenile justice process, Collecting and analyzing the data necessary to measure the results of these efforts; and, with this knowledge, Striving to continuously improve the quality of our decisions, services and programs.
Elements of Pennsylvania’s Models for Change Initiatives Juvenile Justice System Enhancement 16
Increased Knowledge around “What Works” in Reducing Recidivism
Based on over thirty years of research
Well–designed programs that meet certain conditions can reduce recidivism.
Risk Principle (Who to Target) Need Principle (What to Target) Responsivity Principle (How to Match) Treatment Principle (Which Programs to Use)
A Broader View:
8
Evidence-Based Principles of Effective Intervention
5.
6.
7.
8.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Assess risk and needs Enhance intrinsic motivation Target interventions Skill train with directed practice using cognitive behavioral treatment methods Increase positive reinforcement Engage ongoing support in natural communities Measure relevant processes and practices Provide measurement feedback SOURCE: Implementing Evidence-Based Practices In Community Corrections: The Principles of Effective Intervention, National Institute of Corrections
Differences Between
Juvenile Justice System
and
Children Youth and Families Agency Operations
Separation of Legislative, Executive and Judicial Branch of Government
Children, Youth and Family Agency: Under the Executive Branch Administrative Agencies reporting to Commissioners and licensed by OCYF
Juvenile Probation Office: Under Judicial Branch The Judge appoints Chief JPO and all staff
Referral Source
Children, Youth and Family Agency: The Public or Parents via reports/requests: To obtain services To determine child safety risk
Juvenile Probation Office: The Police via Allegation (charges): Begins a legal proceeding (guilt/innocence) Not voluntary involvement Not to obtain services
Case Focus
Children, Youth and Family Agency: Family/Parents = Responding to parental behavior/risk/needs
Juvenile Probation Office: Juvenile = Responding to juvenile’s behavior/risk/needs
Intake
Children, Youth and Family Agency:
Investigates the report and makes determination
of involvement and/or recommends services
Juvenile Probation Office: Reviews charges, recommends diversion (Informal Adjustment Consent/Consent Decree) or files petition and does background investigation to assist with disposition, if there is adjudication
Age 18
Children, Youth and Family Agency: 18 and out unless voluntarily remain
Juvenile Probation Office: Commit Delinquent Act between the age of 10 & 18 Can stay under supervision until age 21
Out of Home Placement
Children, Youth and Family Agency: Put the child in placement to insure the safety of the child
Juvenile Probation Office: Put the youth in placement to insure the protection of the community Includes the option for Secure Residential Placement Sanction Placements
Day Treatment
JPO uses a variety of Day Treatment programs to insure the protection of the community
Not a “Mental Health” service Similar to placement services offered evenings and weekends Placement Alternative and/or aftercare Detention/Shelter Alternative
Attorney Representation
Public Defender ( JJ) versus Guardian Ad Litem (CYF) Private Attorney for the Juvenile (JJ and CYF) District Attorney ( JJ) versus CYF Solicitor (CYF)
(CYF legal standing in a Dependency hearing)
No Parent Attorney ( JJ) No JPO Solicitor ( JJ)
Funding Implications
Funding Implications
OCYF’s Revenue Maximization efforts sought to shift as many CY/JJ services as possible into uncapped federal funding streams such as Medical Assistance and Title IVE
While expressly appropriate for CY agencies servicing dependent children, this funding stream does not fit well with JJS
Funding Implications,
continued
Child Welfare goals do not align with the JJ goals
• 148/NBB funding has shifted expenditures to be compatible with goals of Safety,
Permanency, and Well Being
• The majority of the youth served by the JJS are not IVE eligible and therefore JJ benefits little from the funding • Laudable goals for dependent children, but not in keeping with BARJ or JJSES
Funding Implications,
continued
JJ runs afoul of the Federal requirements:
• By relying on the use of congregate care for the higher risk offenders • By using step-down programming – disruptions in placements • By re-placing offenders (re-entry) who violate the terms of their Aftercare (parole) • By trying to satisfy our BARJ goals
Funding Implications,
continued
Interpretation of Shared Case Responsibility bulletin has lead to inconsistencies:
• In statewide implementation • Perception of CY/JPO roles in shared cases • Identification and selection of shared cases • Case management responsibilities • Regulatory compliance responsibilities – record keeping, hearings, AFCARS reporting, etc.
Funding Implications,
continued
Medical Assistance
Residential service providers were encouraged to “flip” into the MA funding stream and become licensed as RTF’s Approximately $77 million of 148 funds were used as the MA match to increase BH services Mental Health is now looking to reduce the number of RTF’s by encouraging them to pursue a higher level licensure: PRTF This is a more costly service to deliver with a much higher per diem rate
Funding Implications,
continued
Medical Assistance
(Continued)
MA funding cuts have lead to increasing denials for Service Authorizations With denials of Service Authorizations, the cost of services will return to the NBB/County
Will a portion of the MA match funds be restored to the Act 148 pool if further MH cuts reduce Court access to services?
Funding Implications,
continued
JJSES Funding Issues :
JJSES and JPO’s shift to EBP are not in keeping with Federal child welfare goals Emphasis is on using structured decision making to appropriately assess risk and connect needs with services proven to reduce risk SPEP will align service offerings with research data to improve effectiveness with focus on service delivery, quality and service duration SPEP could increase the duration of services needed to be effective at reducing risk
Funding Implications,
continued
Secure Detention =
Maximum Security / Temporary Confinement
Lower utilization increases per diem Must have them ‘Right Sized”, but able to take all required juveniles. Expected utilization rate Shelter =
Non-Secure / Temporary Holding
An alternative to secure detention Need alternative to secure detention in all jurisdictions
Practice Changes
Structured Decision Making
Detention Risk Assessment Instrument: DRAI
Assesses Static Risk factors to determine the likelihood of re-offending prior to court, and appearance in court Structured decision-making Addresses DMC concerns Includes consideration of alternatives to detention
Structured Decision Making
YLS – Youth Level of Service
Criminogenic Needs are Identified in YLS Assessment
1.
2.
3.
4.
Top 4 + one
Attitudes/Orientation Personality/Behavior Peer Relations Family Circumstances 1.
2.
3.
4.
Next 4
Substance Abuse School/Education Employment Leisure Prior/Current Offenses (static)
Risk/Needs Continuum of Services Least Restrictive Alternatives
Risk determines system penetration Needs determine services within each level
Intake CD Probation Day Treatment (CISP) Group Home Non-Secure Residential Fence Secure Diversion
SPEP
Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol SPEP is a scoring system that can be used to assess the capacity a juvenile justice program may have on reducing recidivism SPEP was developed from the extensive research and analysis conducted by Dr. Mark Lipsey, Vanderbilt University on JJ programming SPEP provides “home grown” programs an opportunity to see how their services compare with like services that effectively reduce recidivism SPEP offers providers guidance to incrementally improve their service offerings
SPEP,
continued Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol
SPEP measures the four characteristics of juvenile programs that reduce recidivism 1. Service Type
Group 5: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Group 4: Group counseling, Mentoring, Behavioral Contracting, Contingency Management Group 3: Family Counseling, Family Crisis Counseling, Mixed Counseling, Social Skills Training, Challenge Programs, Mediation Group 2: Restitution, Community Service Work, Remedial Academic Programs Group 1: Individual counseling, Job-related training
SPEP
, continued Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol
2. Quality of Service Delivery
Program/curriculum integrity 3. Amount of Service (Dosage)
Duration
Contact hours 4. Risk Level of Youths Served
Higher Risk = High Dosage of Intervention
Cost Center Discussion
Act 148 Categories
The broader Act 148 Service Categories of In-Home Services, Community Based Placement, and, Institutional Placement are being used for this discussion
There is statewide variation relative to the specific cost centers in which JJ services should be included – especially In-Home Services
Act 148 Categories,
continued
Reducing risk to reoffend, and addressing the criminogenic needs of the offender determine:
The level of service needed
What service is needed
Appropriate service match for offender
Dosage needed to have best results at reducing risk to reoffend
Act 148 Categories,
continued
JJSES implementation is at different stages at the county level
Counties will eventually have the capacity to measure relevant processes and practices
Use data to analyze effectiveness
Shift programming to service offerings that have been shown to reduce recidivism when properly aligned with the offender’s need(s)
Act 148 Categories,
continued
The slides that follow list the services grouped into the larger 148 Service Categories
They also provide, where possible, a link to a BARJ Principle, JJSES/Evidence Based Practice (EBP) or a SPEP Service Category
As JJ departments move through the stages of JJSES, you are likely to see requests for similar service offerings
It is hoped that regional OCYF professionals will find these listings helpful in their local discussions
In-Home Services
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Programs (SPEP: Group 5) Group Counseling (SPEP: Group 4) Mentoring (SPEP: Group 4)
Behavioral Contracting; Contingency Management
(SPEP: Group 4)
Family Counseling (SPEP: Group 3) Family Crisis Counseling (SPEP: Group 3) Mixed Counseling Services (SPEP: Group 3) Social Skills Training (SPEP: Group 3) Mediation (SPEP: Group 3)
In-Home Services,
continued Electronic Monitoring (Community Protection,
Accountability)
Challenge Programs (Competency; SPEP: Group 3) Reporting Centers (Community Protection, Competency;
SPEP: Group 3)
Remedial Academic Programs (SPEP: Group 2;
Competency)
YLS Assessment Instrument (Assessment)
In-Home Services,
continued
Cognitive-Based Intervention Curriculum/Tools
(Competency Development/Risk Reduction), i.e.
Carey Guides Crossroads Bits Thinking for a Change
Employment Readiness Assessment/Employment
Readiness/Skill Development (SPEP: Group 1,
Competency Development)
PACTT Goodwill Vocational Counseling Job training
In-Home Services,
continued
PACTT: Pennsylvania Academic and Career Technical / Training Alliance
(SPEP: Group 2, Competency)
Important regardless of Risk Level Credit Recovery and Academic Advancement Career and Technical Training For those entering placement – o
Curriculum Alignment and Credit Recovery
o o
CTE Transition to Home School/Tech Training/Job
Additional component for residential and in-home program descriptions
Community Based Placement
Detention Alternatives (Community Protection, JDAI) Shelter (Community Protection, JDAI) Alternative Treatment Programs (Competency
Development, SPEP: Group 3)
Foster Family (Community Protection, Accountability,
Competency)
Community Based (Community Protection,
Accountability, Competency)
Independent Living (Competency Development,
SPEP: Group 5-1)
Institutional Placement
Residential Services Secure Residential Services YFC YDC Detention
The higher the risk to reoffend, the more structure and/or security is needed.
Specialized programming to address needs – See
SPEP Service Categories
Adjustment Suggestions
Resources
Juvenile Court Judges Commission: http://www.jcjc.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/jcjc_communi ty/5030 PA Council of Chief Juvenile Probation Officers: http://www.pachiefprobationofficers.org/index.php
SPEP: Standard Program Evaluation Protocol: http://www.episcenter.psu.edu/juvenilejustice/spep PACTT: Pennsylvania Academic and Career Technical/Training Alliance: http://pacttalliance.org
JJ Contacts
Cynthia A. Wess, Director: Cambria
814.472.4700
Robert J. Stanzione, Chief: Bucks
215.348.6522
David Evrard, Assistant Chief: Allegheny
412.350.0225