Transcript Slide 1

Better Responses to
Youth Status
Offenses
November 12, 2013
MARIE WILLIAMS | Coalition for Juvenile Justice
ANNIE SALSICH | Vera Institute of Justice
TARA GRIESHOP-GOODWIN | Kentucky Youth Advocates
Photo: Jen Pagonis (_pidge)
• Leads a national movement
• State-based juvenile justice
coalitions and organizations (43
members in 33 states)
• Laws, policies and practices that
are fair, equitable and
developmentally appropriate for
all children, youth and families
Photo: Moriza
• A nationwide coalition of State
Advisory Groups (SAGs) and
allies.
• Dedicated to:
– preventing children and youth
from becoming involved in the
courts and
– upholding the highest standards of
care when youth are charged with
wrongdoing and enter the justice
system.
Photo: Moriza
Our Speakers
Marie Williams
Acting Executive Director
Coalition for Juvenile Justice
Annie Salsich
Director, Center on Youth Justice
Vera Institute of Justice
Tara Grieshop-Goodwin
Chief Policy Officer
Kentucky Youth Advocates
More Harm Than Good:
Developing National Standards to Address Needs of Youth Charged with Status Offenses
More Harm Than Good:
Developing National Standards to
Address Needs of Youth Charged with
Status Offenses
Why Status Offender Reform?
Major Goals
• Support CJJ’s longtime formal position on prohibiting
detention of status offenders
• Advance in practice, the policy change we seek in JJDPA
reauthorization
• Promote optimal and evidence-based policies and
practices across all states to limit court contact and
prevent adjudication and detention of youth at risk of
being charged as status offenders
Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders
(DSO) Core Requirement of the JJDPA
One of the Original Core Requirements
Youth charged with status offenses (and youth who are alleged
to be dependent, neglected or abused) shall not be placed in
secure detention or correctional facilities.
Valid Court Order (VCO) Exception - 1984
Youth charged with status offenses who violate a valid court
order may be held in a secure juvenile facility for the period
allowable by state/local law.
Is the Valid Court Order Exception still used?
The nation is divided:
• In all, 28 states and territories prohibit or choose not to use
the VCO exception in practice. Of these, 14 have state laws
citing prohibitions.
• In 2008, 27 of 55 states recorded allowable uses of the VCO
exception as part of their JJDPA compliance efforts.
Additionally:
• Wyoming is the only state that does not participate in the
JJDPA – appears to lock-up many status offenders.
• Some non-VCO states are struggling with JJDPA compliance
due to detentions of minors in possession of alcohol.
Is the Valid Court Order Exception still used?
• Approx. 9,850 VCO-related detention orders are issued
annually in the 27 jurisdictions.
• Typically a few courts or jurisdictions are responsible for the
VCO-related detention orders.
• According to OJJDP data from 2007-2008, nearly 60% of all
such VCOs occur in 3 states: Arkansas, Kentucky and
Washington.
Nationwide Concern about Status Offender Detention
When detained, there are safety concerns:
• Nearly 20% of status offenders are placed in living units with youth
who have killed someone;
• More than 25% reside with felony sex offenders;
• Half participate in programming with youth who have been
charged with murder and/or rape.
When detained, there are poor outcomes:
• Re-offense rates increase;
• School engagement and success are diminished;
• Emotional, social, familial and other problems are exacerbated.
•
JJDPA Reauthorization Push to Improve Outcomes
Phase-out use of the VCO exception to the DSO core requirement;
Prohibit detention of children under the custody of child
protection/child welfare agencies;
Place strict limits on lengths of stay in secure detention for all
non-delinquent youth, including status offenders;
Provide funds to enrich the continuum of services for community
based and/or family-connected care for status offenders.
Broad Consensus to Eliminate
ALL Detention for Youth Charged with Status Offenses
• OJJDP at the U.S. Department of Justice
• U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee (x2 in legislation)
• CJJ, NCJFCJ and more than 380 organizations, including:
The American Bar Association
American Probation and Parole Association
Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators
Fight Crime Invest in Kids
National PTA
National, State and Local Trends
Support Deinstitutionalization
– Preventing non-delinquent children from entering locked
facilities where they are housed with more serious offenders;
– Reducing out of home placements and incarceration of youth
charged with delinquent offenses;
– Reducing reliance on secure custody for the full range of
juvenile offenders, with community supervision and case
management approaches: therapeutic, educational and/or skillbuilding components;
– Family and community-connected services/interventions
produce the most positive outcomes for youth development and
community safety.
States Leading the Charge to Avoid Detention
• Recent efforts in VCO states – such as Alabama, Louisiana, Ohio,
Utah and Washington – are cutting VCOs by 50% or more with
practice changes and alternatives to detention.
• Other states have enacted legislative changes to move status
offenders away from the delinquency system, such as Connecticut,
Georgia, New York and Pennsylvania.
Overview: The SOS Project
• Three Core Strategies
– Promote and support judicial leadership
– Develop tools and information to support
change
– Identify, assess and/or develop model policy
Partners
• Public Welfare Foundation
• NCJFCJ and NCJJ
• Vera Institute of Justice
Judicial Leadership Strategy
• Identify and elevate examples of judicial leadership
on the use of alternatives to court involvement and
detention for youth with unmet needs who are
charged with status offenses.
• Provide peer-to-peer support opportunities for
judges seeking alternatives to confinement.
• Distill lessons from judicial leaders on DSO.
Positive Power
Profiled Examples of
Judicial Leadership on
DSO
Focus on:
•Demand for evidence-based
approaches
•Balancing of interests
•Reliance on partnerships
•Use of judicial convening
power
Model Policy Strategy
• Identify and develop state statutes that effectively
divert youth and families from court and confinement
and toward family- and community-based services.
• Analyze, contextualize and measure the effectiveness
of current state statutes in achieving the goals of DSO
and producing optimal outcomes for youth, families
and communities.
National Standards Development
Process
• Phase I - Convening expert advisory group in a consultative
role to develop standards for practice.
– Includes stakeholders from various points of contact with
the JJ system, SAG members, representatives from schools,
child welfare and law enforcement.
• Phase II - Developing the standards for addressing the needs of
youth charged with status offenses without court involvement.
• Phase III – Comment and Dissemination to broaden and
solidify buy-in and begin to promulgate the Standards in the
field.
Promoting the Use and
Sustainability of Standards
Goal #1
State level change in practice.
Goal #2
State level change in policy.
Goal #3
Ground-up support for federal restoration of the original DSO
core requirement, i.e. elimination of the valid court order
exception.
Overview of the National Standards
• Introduction
• Section I: Principles for Responding to
Status Offenses
• Section II: Efforts to Avoid Court Involvement
• Section III: Efforts to Limit Court Involvement
• Section IV: Policy and Legislative Implementation
• Section V: Definitions
Introduction to the National
Standards
• History of status offenses
• Overview of recent understanding about status
offenses as sometimes symptomatic of complex
needs
• History of DSO core requirement, the VCO and
state response
Section I
Principles for Responding to Status Offenses
12 key principles to which professionals can adhere to
protect youth and family well-being. The principles
acknowledge and address the individual, familial and
community contexts in which status offenses may
occur, and underlie all subsequent standards.
Section II
Efforts to Avoid Court Involvement
Discusses key principles and practices to shape how
education, social service, child welfare, runaway and
homeless youth, mental/behavioral health, law enforcement
and juvenile justice systems should first respond to youth
and families at risk and in need of immediate assistance. It
offers examples of early intervention services that will help
the child and family avoid court involvement.
Section III
Efforts to Limit Court Involvement
Focuses on judicial, legal and other professionals
working within the court system, with guidance about
how to use the court’s powers to ensure the proper
services are implemented while avoiding deeper court
involvement. Provides specific guidance at various
stages of the case to ensure best outcomes for youth
and families.
Section IV
Legislative, Administrative and Budgetary Policies
Proposes legislative, administrative and budgetary
principles and policies that relevant authorities can
promote and adopt to reform their current status
offense responder systems, and support implementation
of the National Status Offense Standards proposed in
previous sections.
Section V
Definitions
Common terms referred to in the Standards.
Beyond Courts to Communities: Better
Ways of Responding to Status
Offenses
November 12, 2013
Annie Salsich
Director
Center on Youth Justice
29
July 18,Slide
2015
Presentation Outline
• Why status offense reform
• What system change looks like on the ground
• How practitioners, policy makers, and advocates
can access information, support, and guidance in
this area
Slide 30 • July 18, 2015
Why Status Offense Reform
• In 2010, juvenile courts across the country
processed 137,000 status offense cases.
• In 36% of these cases, the most serious
allegation was truancy – that’s nearly 50,000
kids taken to court for skipping school.
• Despite the noncriminal nature of these
behaviors, youth in approximately 10,400 cases
spent time in detention.
• In 6,100 cases the court disposition was a
longer-term placement in a residential facility .
Slide 31 • July 18, 2015
Why Status Offense Reform
• Courts often over-burdened
• Lack of immediate and appropriate crisis
response
• High financial and social cost of the juvenile
justice system, particularly for non-criminal
behavior
• More effective alternatives
Slide 32 • July 18, 2015
What System Change Looks Like
• A new paradigm has been emerging in many
jurisdictions:
• Connect struggling families with social
services in their communities, instead of
turning to courts.
• The MacArthur Foundation supported and
encouraged this shift in its Models for Change
initiative.
• Vera has provided technical assistance and
research support to more than 30 jurisdictions
across the country in this area since 2001.
Slide 33 • July 18, 2015
What System Change Looks Like
• Effective community-based systems feature the
following:
1. Court diversion
2. Immediate response
3. A process to triage and diagnose
4. Services that are accessible and effective
5. Internal assessment
Slide 34 • July 18, 2015
What System Change Looks Like
Three Examples from the Field:
• Florida
• Calcasieu Parish, LA
• New York State
Slide 35 • July 18, 2015
Florida
Impetus for Change:
 Growing recognition that courts and detention were
inappropriate for serving runaways and other youth
who had not committed crimes
 Passage of Runaway Youth and Family Act in 1983
created a statewide task force to plan a new system
Goal:
 To strengthen the continuum of services that would
serve troubled teens and their families in their
communities
Reform Champion:
 Legislature has been a key champion in the reform
movement
Slide 36 • July 18, 2015
Florida (cont)
Reforms:
 Department of Juvenile Justice contracts with Florida
Network of Youth and Family Services to oversee
FINS/CINS programs
 Youth/families can access immediate services from
over 30 sites statewide
 Strong emphasis on quality assurance and
accountability
Outcomes:
 91% of the 14,847 youth served from 2011-2012
were crime free six months after services
 A 2011 cost effective evaluation found that Florida
Network early interventions saved the state $160
million
Slide 37 • July 18, 2015
Calcasieu Parish, Lousiana
Impetus for Change:
 Concern about the long length of time between
referral and the development of a service plan for
FINS youth
Goals:
 To link youth and families to needed services in the
community and facilitate immediate access to those
services
Reform Champion:
 Calcasieu’s Children and Youth Planning Board
(CYPB) took the lead in planning the MARC
 Engaged in a comprehensive planning process,
which included reviewing FINS data, surveying
youth and providers, and visiting model sites
Slide 38 • July 18, 2015
Calcasieu Parish (cont)
Reforms:
 Launched the Multi-Agency Resource Center
(MARC), a central point of intake for FINS and
delinquent youth
 Emphasis on data tracking and review of case
processing times
Outcomes:
 In 2011 (first year of MARC operation), less than 1
percent of referrals resulted in a court petition
 Time between intake and service plan development
has dropped dramatically, from 50 days to 2 hours
 Since 2006, no youth have been committed to the
Office of Juvenile Justice on FINS charges
Slide 39 • July 18, 2015
New York State
Impetus for Change:
 2001 increase in age of jurisdiction raised concern
about increases in court cases and high costs
associated with non-secure detention and placement
and spurred a closer look at the system as a whole.
Goals:
 To examine how localities were using the status
offense system and find effective alternatives to
juvenile justice involvement.
Reform Champion:
 The New York State Office of Children and Family
Services contracted with the Vera Institute to
conduct a study and provide technical assistance to
23 counties over a 3-year period.
Slide 40 • July 18, 2015
New York State (cont.)
Reforms:
 Localities across the state set out to (1) divert more
PINS youth from the court system and into
supportive services in the community and (2)
develop community-based alternatives to nonsecure detention and placement.
 Legislative change in 2005 to further encourage the
use of court alternatives.
Outcomes:
• Between 2003 and 2012, the state saw a 70%
decrease in PINS court petitions.
Slide 41 • July 18, 2015
How to access guidance in this area
• Vera’s on-line Status Offense Reform
Center
• Funded and supported by the MacArthur
Foundation, as part of its National Resource
Center Partnership.
• Aims to help policymakers and practitioners create
effective, community-based responses for keeping
youth who commit status offenses out of the juvenile
justice system and safely in their homes and
communities.
• Will go live in December –
www.statusoffensereform.org
Slide 42 • July 18, 2015
Status Offense Reform Center
• Toolkit
• Step-by-step guide outlining how to undertake a status offense reform
effort
• Library
• Central repository of information related to status offense behaviors,
system responses, and reform efforts
• SORC Products
• Notes from the Field
• Research Briefs
• Other Features
• Webinars
• Podcasts/Videos
• Blogs
Slide 43 • July 18, 2015
Kentucky Progress on Status Offenses:
Creating Environment for Reform
Tara Grieshop-Goodwin
Kentucky Youth Advocates
Youth locked up for status offenses
From
nd
2
to
th
4
highest
among
50 states
Data reported by Coalition for Juvenile Justice
Use of secure detention has dropped in
recent years for status offenses
2,500
2,270
2,000
1,909
1,555
1,500
1,951
1,765
1,540
# of Bookings
1,335
1,000
998
1,076
1,090
500
0
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Data from Department of Juvenile Justice and Louisville Metro Youth Detention Services
Strategies for creating change

Showing the numbers

Media work

The message
Publishing the numbers
• Numbers of bookings
by county
• Estimated cost by
county
Media coverage
The message

Avoiding jargon

Public safety

Cost of secure detention

Offering a solution
Starting to see success
 Family
court rules
of law
 Local initiatives
 Task Force
developing
recommendations
Questions?
Tara Grieshop-Goodwin
Chief Policy Officer
Kentucky Youth Advocates
[email protected]
502-895-8167 x118
Contact Info
Marie Williams
Acting Executive Director
Coalition for Juvenile Justice
[email protected]
202-467-0864, ext. 113
www.njjn.org
Annie Salsich, Director
Center for Youth Justice
Vera Institute of Justice
[email protected]
(212) 376-3169
Tara Grieshop-Goodwin
Chief Policy Officer
Kentucky Youth Advocates
[email protected]
502-895-8167 x118
www.juvjustice.org