Transcript The Case for Reform: Improving Community Safety Through
The Case for Reform: Improving Community Safety Through Evidence Based Practices
S T E V E N T E S K E , C H I E F J U D G E J U V E N I L E C O U R T, C L AY TO N J U D I C I A L C I R C U I T C H A I R , O V E R S I G H T & I M P L E M E N TAT I O N C O M M I T T E E , C R I M I N A L J U S T I C E R E F O R M C O M M I S S I O N S TAT E O F G EO R G I A
Best Practices Improves Safety
Reform Begins
6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 99 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Complaints Petitions
Step One: Reform Defined
TO CHANGE TO A BET TER STATE, FORM, ETC.; IMPROVE BY ALTERATION, SUBSTITUTION, ABOLITION, ETC.
Real Reform vs. Masked Reform
MASKED REFORM Tragic Event; Knee Jerk Reaction; Politics of Fear; Using a Hammer to Kill a fly; Not Supported by the Data; Risk Unintended Consequences REAL REFORM The Problem is Supported by the Data; Process; Collective Decision-Making; Independent Consultants/Experts; Driven by Data; Evidence Based Programs & Practices (with allowance for Promising Programs) Oversight & Implementation; Performance & Outcome Measures Avoid Unintended Consequences Never Stops
Step Two: Why and When Reform
WHAT WE KNOW TODAY WE DIDN’T KNOW BACK WHEN: THE BEST PRACTICES IN JUVENILE CORRECTIONS
Detention Reform is Essential to Safer Communities & Economic Development
Reduce Detention of lower risk youth Develop Safe Alternatives Implement Best Practices Enveloped in a Collaborative System Reduce Poverty Reduction in Crime Improve Economy
Research: What We Know
Research tells us that: ◦ Placement does not lower the likelihood of juvenile reoffending and may in fact increase the likelihood of committing a new crime for some offenders.
◦ Longer lengths of stay in secure facilities does not increase public safety, ◦ Targeting high risk offenders for correctional interventions maximizes recidivism reduction.
◦ There are a number of community-based intervention strategies and program models that have been proven cost-efficient and are also effective to reduce juvenile reoffending. 7
ADOLESCENT BRAIN RESEARCH
Frontal lobe of brain filters emotion into logical responses is not developed until age 25.
Kids are neurologically wired to do stupid things!
Kids are still under neurological construction.
Kids are being hard-wired and need positive influences such as school.
What’s Wrong with this picture?
Finding What Works, What’s Promising, & What Doesn’t Work
WWW.CRIMESOLUTIONS.GOV
Effective Program Characteristics
Risk Classification Instruments Behavioral Approaches Target Criminogenic Factors Treat Based on Needs Disrupt Criminal Networks Dosage: Occupy 40-70% of Juvenile’s Time Family Members Trained to Provide Support Provide Aftercare Programs Last 3-9 months Rewards & Punishers Used Effectively
Warning!
DO NOT ALLOW NEEDS BASED SYSTEM TO OVERRIDE RISK CLASSIFICATION: A DELINQUENT ACT DOESN’T ALWAYS EQUATE A DELINQUENT CHILD
Match Levels of Treatment to the Risk Level of the Youth
40 30 20 10 0 Min.
Tx Int.
Tx 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
Andrews & Kiessling, 1980
Min.
Tx Int.
Tx Low Risk High Risk 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Min. Tx
O’Donnell et al, 1971
Int. Tx 100 80 60 40 20 0 Min.
Tx
Friesen, 1987
Int.
Tx
What is Criminogenic?
Cognition Peers School Connectedness Substance Abuse Poor/Weak Problem Solving Skills Family Function; AND What I believe should also be assessed---TRAUMA
Traumatized people, traumatize people!
Ineffective Program Characteristics
Client Centered Counseling Vague Unstructured Programs Medical Model Freudian Approaches Good Relationship with Offender Targeting Low Risk Offenders Increasing Self-Esteem Focus on Personal Complaints Programs that Bond Delinquents Intense Group Interactions Fostering Positive Self Regard Punishing Smarter Improve Neighborhood Wide Conditions Self Actualization No Concrete Assistance in Realizing Ambitions Intense Supervision w/o Tx
Punishment vs. Treatment
0.15
0.1
0.05
0 -0.05
-0.1
C.S.
Tx Rate of Recidivism
Step Three Effective Reform Process
LEADS TO EFFECTIVE REFORM OUTCOMES
Problems Facing Georgia
Too many low risk youth committed to State custody High cost for commitments to secure and non-secure facilities High recidivist rates Lack of evidence based programs and practices in the community Lack of a centralized data collection system to measure performance and outcomes Lack of coordination of agencies at local level to deliver services.
Vera Institute of Justice: Making justice systems fairer and more effective through research and innovation
Policies: What were the goals?
Develop fiscally sound, data-driven juvenile justice policies that ensure Georgia’s tax dollars are used effectively and efficiently; Focus on those offenders who are adjudicated delinquent and sent to an out-of-home placement; Identify reforms to current dispositional practices that improve public safety and control costs through more effective use of community-based options.
21
Process Used
Governor created Georgia Criminal Justice Reform Council Governor requested PEW’s assistance Data Dumping and Analysis using PEW’s experts Orientation on What Works & What Doesn’t in Juvenile Justice with PEW assistance Stakeholder Involvement Council divided into working groups (i.e. Community Supervision & Out of Home Placements) Guidelines on policy development—must be supported by data, evidence-based practices, and sound fiscal practices Policy recommendations made to Governor for consideration Legislative counsel assigned to develop legislation to effectuate policies adopted.
Workgroup Findings
Total Population (2011) % Non-felony (Misdemeanor or Status) % Non Violent Offense Types % Low-Risk Recidivism Rate (Released in 2007) Cost Out-of-Home Population
24% 64% N/A 1,917 58% 40%
YDC Population
619 1% 39% 39% 65% $91,126 per bed
Designated Felons
0% N/A 607 38% 39% N/A
Non-Secure Residential Population
53% 54% $28,955 per juvenile 600 70% 49%
RYDC Population
698 20% 65% 34% N/A $88,155 per bed Large numbers of low‐risk kids consume expensive juvenile justice resources and recidivism rates remain high.
◦ YDC: 39% low-risk, 65% recidivism rate, $91,126 per bed ◦ Non-Secure Residential: 53% non-felony, 49% low-risk, 54% recidivism rate, $28,955 per juvenile 23
Race/Ethnicity of Youth in System
Out-of-Home
Other 9% Other
Community
11% White 22% Afr Amer 69% White 31% Afr Amer 58% n = 1,917 n = 13,790 24
Fiscal Incentives
Recommendation 1: Texas.
Implement a performance incentive structure similar to Ohio and Evidence-based community-based options can reduce recidivism, but too often, the quantity and quality of community-based options in Georgia is dependent upon location and funding. Ohio and Texas: Several states and local communities have aligned their fiscal relationship in ways that reward performance. For example, Ohio’s RECLAIM program provides incentives to counties to develop and utilize community-based alternatives. This proposal would recommend that Georgia develop and implement a fiscal incentive structure similar to Ohio and Texas.
Working group currently considering potential details of this proposal to determine its efficacy. This group will report back to the full Council.
25
Designated Felons
Recommendation 2: Create a two-class system within the Designated Felony Act.
Currently, the Designated Felony Act contains one dispositional structure for nearly 30 offenses ranging from murder to smash and grab burglary. In 2011, 39% of designated felons in a YDC were assessed as low-risk. Georgia pays $91,126 per bed per year at a YDC. Despite these high costs, 65% of juveniles released from a YDC are re-adjudicated delinquent within three years. This proposal would revise the Designated Felony Act to create a two-class system that continues to allow for restrictive custody in all DF cases while taking into account both offense severity and risk level. The Council also suggests adjusting the dispositional sanctions for each class that corresponds to the degree of the offense and takes into account the risk level of offenders. 26
Status Offenders and Misdemeanants
Recommendation 3: Prohibit status offenders and some misdemeanants from being committed to secure residential facilities and reinvest savings into the community.
53% of juveniles in a non-secure residential facility were adjudicated for a misdemeanor (45%) or status offense (8%). In addition, there are additional post-adjudication misdemeanor and status offenders sitting in an RYDC awaiting a placement. Several states have recently implemented restrictions on the placement of misdemeanor and/or status offenders in state facilities, including Texas, Florida, Virginia and Alabama.
This proposal would allow only juveniles who were adjudicated for a felony offense to be committed to state facilities, unless they met certain criteria.
Reinvestment: In addition, the working group suggests that the Special Council recommend that half of the projected savings from this recommendation be reinvested back into communities through a grant program to the counties to support local, evidence-based interventions for these offenders. 27
School Related Offenses
Recommendation 4: Require juvenile courts to collect and track data regarding referrals to the juvenile justice system. Currently, there is no uniform mechanism for collecting and tracking referrals to the juvenile justice system. As a result, the state is not able to identify which cases result from school related offenses and assess the degree to which school-based incidents and referrals are key drivers into the system. This proposal would require the collection and tracking of this data in order to give the state the capacity to make more informed, data-driven decisions that can improve public safety.
. 28
Impact by County
Impact Statewide
Oversight and Implementation
MEASURING PERFORMANCE & OUTCOMES
Step Four: Identifying Best Practices
LEADS TO BEST OUTCOMES
Advisory Committee Clayton County System of Care Governance Structure Governance Committee SOC Administration SOC Assistant Quad CST FAST Panel Service Providers
Local Collective Decisions
2002-Objective Admissions Instrument (DAI) 2002-Detention Alternatives (electronic and GPS monitoring, evening reporting center, Tracking, and creative bail techniques) 2003-Juvenile Justice Cooperative (now called Clayton County System of Care) 2004-School Referral Reduction Agreement 2004-Clayton County Collaborative Child Study Team (Quad C-ST)—First Generation System of Care 2006-School/Justice Partnership (creating the school-based probation program) 2007-Truancy Protocol (diverting all status offenders to the Quad C-ST) 2009-Established the Clayton County System of Care with JABG funding 2009-Establish the Second Chance court Program for Deep-End Offenders 2013-System of Care enhanced with Robert Wood Johnson Forward Promise Grant 2013-Clayton County Board of Commissioners & Clayton County Public School System sign MOU to jointly fund the administrative costs of the Clayton County System of Care 2013-Georgia passes Juvenile Justice Reform Act that includes reinvestment program 2014-Clayton receives $200,000 in re-investment funding that goes toward Functional Family Therapy.
The F.A.S.T. Panel • • • • • Multi-disciplinary panel of experts; Meeting before detention hearings; To assess each case for risk and safe alternatives for release pending next hearing; And divert cases away from the court where appropriate.
Judges accept 93% of the recommendations.
Target High Juveniles: Increase Supervision Decreases Recidivism
1400 1200 1000 TOTAL NUMBER 800 600 400 200 0 1998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013 YEAR Total Probation Total Diversion
SCHOOL OFFENSE PROTOCOL AGREEMENT
Focused Acts: Affray, DPS, DC, Obstruction First Offense/Warning Second Offense/Referral to Workshop Third Offense/Complaint Filed
School Offense Agreement Signed by all Police Chiefs, School Superintendent, Juvenile Judges, DFCS Director, and other partners on July 8, 2004
Quad C-ST
• • • A multi-disciplinary panel of experts that meet 2-3 times weekly; To assess chronically disruptive students, truant students, and probationers on an as needed basis; To develop a treatment plan for prevention and interventions.
IMPACT OF SRO WITH & WITHOUT MOU 93 SRO Program Begins 94 95 96
74 6
97 Negotiations begin on MOU
1147
School/Justice MOU Signed
264 44
98 Quad C-ST
889 848 691
System of Care
469 62
99
519 570 532 57
0
107 79 115
1 2 3 Misdemeanors
198 120 142
4 5 Felonies 6
440 81
7
350 310 61
8
74
9
193 89 126 73
10 11
164 77 154 97
12 13
Keeping Kids in School, Out of Court, Improves Community Safety 120% 100% System of Care: Collective Impact 80% Protocol Begins 60% 40% 20% JDAI Begins OSS Alternatives & Court Diversion Quad C-ST Graduation Rates Arrest Rates 0% 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
High risk youth recommended at disposition for prison; Must possess responsivity characteristics matching program requirements; Initial 6 months on home confinement with GPS monitor; Attend Evening Reporting Center daily for structured program including cognitive restructuring, life skills, drug counseling, tutoring, work readiness, family counseling with parents, community service, and other activities; Parents must attend every Tuesday & meet with the judge; Graduated supervision from home confinement, strict curfew, and transition to regular probation; Length of program from 18-24 months; 60 participants of which 26% have been revoked of which only 8% were on new offenses (remainder technical); This is compared to the 65% recidivist rates of those who are committed.
4/27/2020
Clayton County System of Care
MOVING TOWARD COLLECTIVE IMPACT 42
Clayton County System of Care Core Message: “In school, out of court, on to a positive and healthy future”
43 4/27/2020
4/27/2020 44
Take what we are doing well and house it under an umbrella agency:
4/27/2020 45
4/27/2020 46
[email protected]
Twitter @scteskelaw Facebook Linkedin
PHONE (770) 477-3260 GENIENE LEWIS, JUDICIAL ASSISTANT