Council of State Governments Justice Center | 1 Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and...

Council of State Governments Justice Center | 1

Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Michael Thompson, Director

June 22, 2015

Closer to HomeA Review of Findings


States’ dramatic progress in reducing confinement rates

Estimated Out-of-School Suspensions Nationally

Estimated In-School Suspensions Nationally

-100%

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Conn

ectic

utRh

ode

Isla

ndM

issis

sipp

iTe

nnes

see

Geo

rgia

Loui

sian

aAr

izona

Sout

h Ca

rolin

aN

orth

Car

olin

aCa

lifor

nia

Wis

cons

inN

ew Y

ork

Alas

kaW

ashi

ngto

nN

ew Je

rsey

Mar

ylan

dTe

xas

Mon

tana

Del

awar

eU

nite

d St

ates

Min

neso

taO

hio

Alab

ama

New

Ham

pshi

reIll

inoi

sM

assa

chus

etts

Mic

higa

nKe

ntuc

kyVi

rgin

iaFl

orid

aKa

nsas

New

Mex

ico

Okl

ahom

aN

evad

aH

awai

iM

aine

Indi

ana

Colo

rado

Iow

aO

rego

nPe

nnsy

lvan

iaW

yom

ing

Miss

ouri

Verm

ont

Uta

hSo

uth

Dak

ota

Arka

nsas

Neb

rask

aN

orth

Dak

ota

Idah

oW

est V

irgin

ia

PERCENT CHANGE IN STATE COMMITMENT RATES (1997-2011)

*Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Easy Access to the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement. Available at ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezacjrp


2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 20130

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

Texas juvenile justice system overhauled

2011 LEGISLATUREMerged former Texas Youth Commission and Texas Juvenile Probation Commission to form Texas Juvenile Justice Department (TJJD)

2013 LEGISLATUREMandated TJJD to close one additional state-run secure facility; $25 million designated for community mental health services

REFORM HIGHLIGHTS and AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION IN STATE-SECURE JUVENILE FACILITIES

2009 LEGISLATURE$45 million for

Commitment Reduction Program, with incentive

funding for counties and community supervision

2007 LEGISLATUREProhibited commitment to

state-run secure facilities for misdemeanor offenses;

age of state jurisdiction reduced from 21 to 19; $60

million in new funding for counties


High rearrest rates for youth under juvenile justice supervision in Texas

One-Year Rate(2012 Group)

Three-Year Rate(2010 Group)

Five-Year Rate (2008 Group)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

35%

64%

75%

44%

77%

85%

Rearrest Rate for Youth on ProbationRearrest Rate for Youth Released from State-run Secure Facilities

REARREST RATE FOR YOUTH ON PROBATION AND RELEASED FROM STATE-RUN SECURE FACILITIES, ONE, THREE AND FIVE YEAR RATE


Texas state leaders asked: “What impact did the reforms have?”

Funding:

Partners:

Request:


2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 20140

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

12.5

15.0

17.5

20.0

22.5

25.0

Dramatic decrease in the number of youth in state-run juvenile correctional facilities after 2007 reforms

% ChangeFY04-

06FY07-

14

-2% -70%

AVERAGE ADP

TOTAL ADMISSIONS AVERAGE ADP


Proportionate decline in commitments cross white, Hispanic, and African-American youth

DISPOSITIONS RESULTING IN COMMITMENT TO STATE SECURE FACILITIES BY RACE

2005 2008 20120.5%

1.5%

2.5%

3.5%

4.5%

5.5%

4.7%

3.4%

2.3%

3.0%

2.0%

1.5%

2.6%

1.7%

1.2%

BlackHispanicWhite


2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 20120

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

Florida

Texas

California

Juvenile arrests in Texas droppedwhile number of youth incarcerated declined

JUVENILE ARREST RATE (PER 100,000 POPULATION) 2000-2012 FOR TEXAS, FLORIDA, AND CALIFORNIA

Source for juvenile population: www.ojjdp.gov, Easy Access to Juvenile Populations: 1990-2013


Youth on probation less likely to be rearrested than youth with nearly identical characteristics released from state-run secure facilities

One Year Probability of

Rearrest

First Recidivism Offense a

FelonyYOUTH RELEASED FROM STATE-RUN

SECURE FACILITIES41%

YOUTH SUPERVISED IN

THE COMMUNITY

49%

34% 17%

Youth released from state-run secure facilities were

21% more likely to rearrested

Youth released from state-run secure facilities were

3x more likely to commit a felony when recidivating


Per capita funding for juvenile probation increased significantly after reforms

FY2005 FY2012 % Change

Per capita expenditures for local juvenile probation departments $3,555 $7,023 98%


After reforms, rearrest rates did not improve and were comparable for all interventions

PRE-REFORMSTUDY GROUPOne Year Probability of Rearrest

Treatment Program

State Incarceration 41%

Skill-Based Program

Surveillance Program

Secure County Placement

Non-Secure County Placement

No Intervention

29%

28%

31%

33%

35%

33%

POST-REFORMSTUDY GROUPOne Year Probability of Rearrest

41%

27%

30%

29%

34%

35%

32%


28%32%

40%30%

Expected recidivism rates compared to actual recidivism rates

EXPECTEDREARREST RATE

Victoria

Tarrant 36%

Travis 37%

ACTUALREARREST RATE

46%

44% HIGHER

Harris 37%

Lubbock 33%

39%

33%AS

EXPECTED

El Paso

Cameron 34%Dallas 31%

28%

27% LOWER


Key Takeaways for Texas

1. Texas has reduced the number of youth incarcerated in its state-run secure facilities without compromising public safety.

2. Youth supervised “closer to home” have lower rearrest rates than similar youth released from state-run secure facilities.

3. The state has invested some of the hundreds of millions saved, which resulted from the closure of eight state-run secure facilities, in community-based supervision and services.

4. Recidivism rates for youth under community supervision have not improved since the reforms. Texas is not realizing the full potential of its investment in community based supervision and services


Report released Jan. 29, 2015 at TX Supreme Court


Report Finding:Youth released from state-run

secure facilities were 21% more likely to rearrested

Legislation passed in response to report findings

Texas SB 1630:

Further limits the commitment of youth to state secure facilities

Requires juvenile departments to develop regionalization plans to keep youth “closer to home”


Report Finding:Gaps in use of best practice

have kept Texas from realizing the full potential of

their investment in community interventions

Legislation passed in response to report findings

Texas SB 1630:

Requires the development of research- based programs for youth in the community and those committed

Establishes performance based goals and ties funding to these goals

Creates a new TJJD division responsible for monitoring program quality and accountability


DOJ can help states and counties to:

1. Take a hard look at impact of reforms they have enacted

2. Minimize incarceration of youth in state correctional facilities

3. Improve outcomes for youth under community-based supervision


Thank You

The presentation was developed by members of the Council of State Governments Justice Center staff. The statements made reflect the views of the authors, and should not be considered the official position of the Justice Center, the members of the Council of State

Governments, or the funding agency supporting the work. Citations available for statistics presented in preceding slides available on CSG Justice Center web site.

FULL REPORT AT:

http://csgjusticecenter.org/youth/publications/closer-to-home/

HOME PAGE AT:

http://csgjusticecenter.org



http://csgjusticecenter.org/

http://csgjusticecenter.org/

Date post:	27-Dec-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	marshall-matthews
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

Council of State Governments Justice Center | 1 Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and...

Documents