Date post: | 31-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | isaac-robinson |
View: | 19 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Reducing Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the Juvenile Justice System:
Moving Beyond Abstract Discussion to Strategic Response
Judy Cox, Former Chief of Probation,Santa Cruz CountyOctober 21, 2008
Current state of DMC
Youth of color are: Disproportionately represented in the juvenile
justice system of every State. Disproportionately represented in all stages of
the juvenile justice system… and the rates of overrepresentation increase as youth go through the system.
More likely to be detained for low level offenses.
More likely to receive out of home placements. More likely to be placed in adult jails.
Overrepresentation of Youth of Color in Public Detention Centers: 1985 – 2006
43.4%
56.6%
56.4%43.6%
White Youth
Youth of color
1985 1995
Youth of color
Source: Census of Public and Private Juvenile Detention, Correctional and Shelter Facilities, 1985-2006 .
65.0%
35.0%
2006
White Youth
Youth of color
White Youth
2/3 of Detainees are Kids of Color
Sources: Snyder, H. (2006). Juvenile Arrests 2004. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics; (2007). "Easy Access to the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement." Available: http://ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/ezacjrp/;
Why do Racial and Ethnic Disparities exist in the
Juvenile Justice System?
Why do Racial and Ethnic Disparities exist in the Juvenile Justice System? The Facts:
Addressing DMC has been a Federal priority for two decades.
Data consistently indicates that disparities exist and that these disparities are not offense driven.
States prioritize reducing DMC as one of the most critical issues in juvenile justice today.
State Juvenile Justice Priorities
States identified three topics as the most critical issues confronting their juvenile justice systems:Disproportionate Minority Contact
(DMC) (38 states). Mental health assessment and treatment (30
states). Detention reform (22 states).
2007 Federal Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice: Annual Report to the Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
THE DISTRACTERS
1.Global Conversation
2.Blame Game
3.Culture of Politeness
4.Restatement of the Problem
THE GLOBAL CONVERSATION
DMC is caused by:
• Racism
• Poverty
• Levels of Criminality
THE BLAME GAME
It’s the fault of: the kids, the families, the community, the
parents, society at large, music videos, television, the police, judges, the mayor, the governor, the President, racism, subtle discrimination, overt discrimination, the “system,” drugs, guns, poor education, inadequate housing, the schools, the kids, the families, the community, the parents, society at large, music videos…
Process Truths
Process is not NOT SEAMLESS
Process is not NOT EXPEDITIOUS
•Agency mandates and agendas are inconsistent
•Leadership Changes
•Public Will Changes
•Values must be learned and embraced over time
•Cultural shifts do not manifest immediately
DMC Truths
High rates of DMC of jurisdictions throughout the nation
Juvenile justice systems have not been held accountable-- despite the federal legislative mandate to address DMC.
Lack of awareness and/or interest among key decision makers about the problem.
Restatement of the problem without identification of strategic response for reduction.
Lack of knowledge among affected communities about how to address the problem.
States do not feel equipped with strategies to reduce disparities.
State Responses to why there is a lack of reductions
Lack of Data or Lack of Access to Data “We don’t have true RRI data because there is not enough
data. We don’t have any data by race for any court decision points. The data doesn’t really inform what type of response we have because there hasn’t been an assessment of the data in quite a while.”
“There is no consistency in the collection of data and the numbers are so small that it is hard to get people to care about county-wide data. In one county we started using school data rather than census data because the population is shifting rapidly. There is a federal relocation center for immigrants, so the minority population is increasing fast there, but is not accounted for in the census data.”
In one State, one Judicial District is attempting to gain access to the data collected by the Judicial Administration Office, but has been denied access to the system.
Moving Forward Towards a Strategic
Response
Moving Forward Towards a Strategic Response
Promising Federal Legislation: S. 3155
Innovative Funding to Localities from SAGs: The California DMC-TAP Example
Establishing an Institutional Response at the Local Level: Strategies that Work.
History of DMC in the JJDPA 1974: Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) passes to put in place
protections for youth involved in the JJS.
1988: Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act has required states that receive formula grant program funding to determine whether the proportion of juvenile minorities in confinement exceeds their proportion of the population and, if so, to develop corrective strategies.
1992: Congress elevated this issue to a “core requirement” of the JJDPA
2002: OJJDP changed the requirement from reporting the proportion of minority juveniles in confinement to include the proportion of minorities at each key point of contact in the juvenile justice system.
2007-2008: JJDPA up for reauthorization. Act4JJ advocating to strengthen requirement to include specific guidance to State and localities.
Current DMC Language in JJDPA“address juvenile delinquency prevention
efforts and system improvement efforts designed to reduce, without establishing or requiring numerical standards or quotas, the disproportionate number of juvenile members of minority groups who come into contact with the juvenile justice system.”
Problem with Current DMC Language
No oversight of efforts Vague requirement to “address” DMC
Lack of concrete direction for States Lack of measurable objectives Lack of guidance around data collection No requirement to map critical decision making points No mandate to learn causes of disparities
“Minority groups” distinction problematic No mandate for tracking and publicly reporting
efforts and progress
S. 3155
July 31, 2008: U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary marked-up and passed, by voice vote, S. 3155, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2008, Bi-partisan legislation to reauthorize the Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) Originally co-sponsored by Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-
VT), Ranking Member Arlen Specter (R-PA), and Senator Herb Kohl (D-WI).
S. 3155 on Racial and Ethnic Disparities ‘‘(15) implement policy, practice, and system improvement strategies at the State,
territorial, local, and tribal levels, as applicable, to identify and reduce racial and ethnic disparities among youth who come into contact with the juvenile justice sys tem, without establishing or requiring numerical standards or quotas, by—
‘‘(A) establishing coordinating bodies, composed of juvenile justice stakeholders at the State, local, or tribal levels, to oversee and monitor efforts by States, units of local government, and Indian tribes to reduce racial and ethnic disparities;
‘‘(B) identifying and analyzing key decision points in State, local, or tribal
juvenile justice systems to determine which points create racial and ethnic disparities among youth who come into contact with the juvenile justice system;
‘‘(C) developing and implementing data collection and analysis systems to identify where racial and ethnic disparities exist in the juvenile justice system and to track and
analyze such disparities;
‘‘(D) developing and implementing a work plan that includes measurable objectives for policy, practice, or other system changes, based on the needs identified in the data collection and analysis under subparagraphs (B) and (C); and
‘‘(E) publicly reporting, on an annual basis, the efforts made in accordance with subparagraphs (B), (C), and (D);’’
Moving Forward Towards a Strategic Response
Promising Federal Legislation: S. 3155
Innovative Funding to Localities from SAGs: The California DMC-TAP Example
Establishing an Institutional Response at the Local Level: Strategies that Work.
California Enhanced DMC-TAP Funding
Total of $2.6 million for three year grant Goal is to provide tools and resources needed to
provide leadership in developing or strengthening DMC reduction activities
Five sites awarded Each site receives $750,000, broken into three one
year phases: Infrastructure and education Stakeholder involvement Implementation
Phase 1- DMC Infrastructure and Education
Phase 1 Purpose: • Assist probation departments in establishing or
strengthening the foundation for a DMC reduction effort.
Phase 1 Grant funds are earmarked for: • Identified infrastructure needs within the department
(e.g., DMC staff and/or resources needed to implement/improve data collection and analysis efforts)
• Contracting with an expert consultant to conduct probation staff training sessions on DMC and to assist with data analysis.
Phase 2 - Stakeholder Collaboration and Plan Development
Phase 2 Purpose: • Support the education of stakeholders (e.g., police,
judges, district attorneys, and public defenders) about the probation department’s DMC efforts and to engage stakeholders in the development of a long-term DMC reduction plan.
Phase 2 Grant funds are earmarked for:• Contracting with an expert consultant to facilitate
stakeholder collaboration and assist in developing DMC reduction strategies.
• Continued support of DMC staff within the department.
Phase 3 - Implementation of DMC Reduction Plan
Phase 3 Purpose: • Support implementation of the DMC reduction plan
developed in Phase 2.
Phase 3 Grant funds are earmarked for:• specific activities outlined in the DMC reduction plan
(e.g., development of risk assessment tools, provision of cultural awareness/competency training, implementation or expansion of prevention and/or diversion programs for at-risk youth).
• Funds are also available for continued support of DMC staff.
Action Plan
Problem Solving
Burns Institute
Probation Department
Data Discussion and Hypothesis Formation
Core Working Group Convener
* Unit Supervisors * Front-line Staff
* Program Manager * Information Experts
Communication: Departmental Circulars, Reports to the Field
Impact Assessments
Field Reports
Training: Needs Identification, Development, and Delivery
* Data Development * Case studies & review
The Demographics of Detention
72.1%
64.7%
36.5%
48.7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
1997 2005
Minorities as % of detained Minorities as % of "at risk"
Organizing the DMC work: From Data to Action
Moving Forward Towards a Strategic Response
Promising Federal Legislation: S. 3155
Innovative Funding to Localities from SAGs: The California DMC-TAP Example
Establishing an Institutional Response at the Local Level: Strategies that Work.
How Do we Know?
Is the Juvenile Justice System Just, fair and equitable?
Measuring DMC – Where to Begin
Questions to ask yourself: What are your goals? What does success look like? What is your process for data collection and
analysis?
Measuring DMC Gather baseline data Establish key DMC indicators to track over time Collect, Analyze and Monitor
Basic Data MeasuresDecision Points Measured by Federal Mandate
Population
Arrests
Referrals to Court
Diversions
Secure Detentions
Filings
Delinquency Findings
Probation Placements
Commitments
Adult Court
Referrals to Detention
Admissions to Detention
Risk Assessment Instrument Adherence
Average Length of Stay
Average Daily Population
Alternatives to DetentionAdditional Decision Making Points to Measure
Operational Data Measures
Success Rates
Access
Outcomes
Compliance with Policies
Geographic
Efficiency and processing times
Studying procedures, policies, and programs through a racial lens
Examples of Operational Data: Studies in Santa Cruz
Length of Time in Custody Pending Placement
Bench Warrants / Probation Violations
Filings in Adult Court
Risk Assessment Instrument
Detention Alternatives Access / Success
Length of Stay in Custody / Court Processing Time
Completion / Success Rates in Post-Dispo Programs
Program design Studies (Evening Center)
Maintain ongoing system of data collection and analysis
Identify factors contributing to disproportionality
Dig deeper into factors contributing to disproportionality
Strategize about policy and practice change to reduce racial and ethnic disparities
Adopt strategy
Indicator to monitor effectiveness of each strategy in reducing racial disparities
Document changes in reducing racial disparities
Strategy for Reducing Racial and Ethnic Disparities
On
go
ing
pro
cess
Juvenile Hall Bookings
Identify Factors Contributing to DMC:Juvenile Detention Paths and Processes: Santa Cruz County, 2006
851
Sent Home Immediately: 182 (21%)
Detention Hearings
455
Sent Home > 4 hours: 213 (25%)
Remain in Detention
31237%
160 without conditions
53 with conditions
Sent Home 143 (17%)
“Probation Failure”
273
New Arrests
578
147 without conditions
35 with conditions
69 without conditions
74 with conditions
53%
Goal:
Move these youth
Identify Factors Contributing to DMC:Youth Held by Probation but Released by the Judge
Latino (43%)
Anglo (50%)
Other (6%)
Latino (53%)
Anglo (41%)
A.A.
35%
59%
7%
Sent Home 143 (17%)
69 without conditions
74 with conditions
Youth Population BookingsHeld by Probation but released at Detention Hearing
Anglo
Latino
Strategy for Reducing Racial Disparities
Identify Factors contributing to disproportionality
Dig Deeper into Factors contributing to disproportionality: Youth held by Probation and Released by the Judge. Profile of Youth Isolate areas where Probation has decision making authority to
release youth
Strategize about Policy and Practice Change to reduce racial disparities
Adopt Strategy
Indicator to Monitor effectiveness of each strategy in reducing racial disparities
Document Changes in reducing racial disparities
Digging Deeper into Youth Held by Probation but Released by the Judge
General Profile of Youth by R/E and… Offenses Gender Geography Number of Contacts Probation Status Override Status
Currently, Probation has little authority to release: Youth with a High RAI Score Youth for whom EMP is appropriate Youth with “Special Detention” Status
Identify Factors Contributing to DMC:Youth Held by Probation but Released by the Judge
Strategy for Reducing Racial Disparities: Where Does Probation have Decision Making Authority?
Judicial Releases by Intake RAI
5 3 5
16
38
2 2 53
00
3
0
2
0 0
2
13
24
20
11
13
7 4
10
0
10
20
30
40
Released Home
Supervision
EMP Released Home
Supervision
EMP Released Home
Supervision
EMP
Low Medium High
Anglo African American Latino
Judicial Releases by Intake RAI -
Special Detentions Excluded
1 3 38
26
2 2 51 0 0
1
0
1
0 027 2 3
6
10
13
7 4
9
0
10
20
30
40
Released Home
Supervision
EMP Released Home
Supervision
EMP Released Home
Supervision
EMP
Low Medium High
Anglo African American Latino
If we also delete the youth for whom EMP is appropriate and the high RAI scoring youth, we are down to only 41 youth.
But… 66% of these youth (27 youth) are youth of color
Volume: The number of youth decreases significantly when controlling for RAI score; EMP holds; and policy holds. From 143 youth down to 41 youth. But, there is still room for improved decision making: 41 youth
impacted in 2006 – 66% were youth of color.
Geography: The highest proportion of youth were from 95076
Probation Caseload: 61% of the youth were probation intakes; 39% were already on probation caseload
Discretion within Policy Holds: There may be room for improved Probation decision making with policy holds 71% of policy holds were non-releasable bench warrants and 68%
of these holds were youth of color.
The majority of bench warrants were FTAs. We need to investigate the number of FTAs that were on Probation and whether and why they were violated.
What did we learn about youth held by Probation and Released by the Judge in 2006?
Policy/Practice Change: Reinstituted Call Notification Management Approval for overrides
Digging Deeper RAI Research and Review Probation Violation Research and Review Bench Warrant Research and Review Additional Research into Linguistic Barriers Staff “Indicator” tracking
Action
Results
Results for Target Population (youth Held by Probation Released by Judge): Population decreased by 20% Failures to Appear decreased by 71%
(81% for Y.O.C.)
Probation Overrides decreased by 62% (61% for Y.O.C.)
Establishing an Institutional Response:
Identifying Indicators and establishing a response
You’ve got data…You know where disparities exist…You know where policy/practice change
could impact the numbers…
Now What?
Uses for Data
Gathering as “Activity” for Reports
Gathering to fulfill a grant requirement
Research Related to HypothesisTo Inform and Drive Department
Policy that will Reduce Racial and Ethnic Disparities
Developing an Institutional Response
Origins Goals Process
Leadership/Vision of sustainability
DMC 101 Survey Results
Need for sustained data collection and analysis
Do you have a role in reducing racial and ethnic disparities?
DMC 101 Survey Results
Yes No Total% Yes
Juvenile Hall Staff and Supervisors 5 6 1145%
DPO 1-2 9 8 1753%
DPO 3 4 2 667%
Manager 4 0 4100%
Total 24 16 4463%
The higher level the Probation staff, the greater the perception that they have a role in reducing disparities.
Developing an Institutional Response
Origins Goals Process
Sustainability: Establish a departmental, institutional response to using data to reduce disparities
Staff Buy in to Reform work: Infuse JDAI/BI principles into daily work and in a way that achieves staff buy in at all levels.
Gain insight: Gain important insight from line staff regarding reasons for disparities and/or what to attribute progress in reducing disparities on ongoing basis
Reduce Disparities
Developing an Institutional Response
Origins Goals Process
Identify Unit Indicators of Disproportionality
Train, Process, Adapt, Train, Process, Adapt, Train, Process, Adapt, Train, Process,
Adapt…
Develop a strategic, institutional response to using data that engages line staff
Develop database to capture Unit DMC Indicators
Culture change
Reductions in disparities
Developing Institutional Response
DPO III’s review indicators on the intranet server noting trends and anomalies;
DPO IIIs and ADD review summary sheets at regularly scheduled monthly meeting with direct supervisor (ADD);
DPO IIIs and ADDs report out at regularly scheduled ADD/DPO III meeting held every 6 weeks regarding (strong focus on peer learning environment).
General Supervision: North vs. South County PVs - Cumulative
North County Latino PVs
37
54
3132302725
303553
3
0
20
40
60
Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Latino on Caseload Latino PV
South County Latino PVs
110 106125118116118114
45126714
10
0
50
100
150
Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Latino on Caseload Latino PV
Highlights
•In North County, the Latino caseload has doubled, but the rate of probation violations has decreased.
•In South County, the rate of Latino violations has decreased.
•In General, the rate of probation violations for Latino youth is higher in North County.
12 % on caseload were violated
5.5 % on caseload were violated
11%16%
11%10% 0%
12% 6% 5% 9.5% 5%
9% on caseload were violated
4% on caseload were violated
General Supervision: North vs. South County PVs - Cumulative
North County White PVs
96 95106106100104
104
141
963
1
0
40
80
120
Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
White on Caseload White PV
South County White PVs
2125
22211616
17
1000021
0
10
20
30
Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
White on Caseload White PV
Highlights
•In North County, the violation rate for White youth remains low.
•The rate of violations for White youth in North County is consistently lower than it is for Latino youth in North County.
•In South County, the caseload of White youth has increased, but the violation rate has decreased.
•In General, the rate of probation violations for White youth is higher in South County.
3%6%
8.5%1% 4%
13% 0% 0% 0% 0%
1%1%
12%4%
Creating a Culture of Change
Incentivize DMC Work among staff Developing Strategic Community Outreach Being open to scrutiny Time not wasted with typical distracters Strategic Hiring
Data work is continuous and multi-dimensional After you discover the main issues, keep looking for the
combined impact of the smaller effects on DMC and confinement
Focus on the area that is the most damaging – CONFINEMENT
The real work occurs when you begin to change programs, policies, and procedures
Keep monitoring – it drifts back to the status quo if you look away!
Active leadership – behavior change will follow De-centralize data studies
Using Data to Develop Policy Reform: Santa Cruz Lessons Learned
Geographic Analysis
We need to know which Neighborhoods are most impacted by detention because: Development of ATD’s Ensure Community is Represented Focus Analysis
Geographic Analysis: Where are the incidents taking place?
1312
9 9 97
6
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
# INCIDENTS
Manual High School—Crime Hot Spot--
Peoria
DMC reductions are possible when jurisdictions….
1. Use DATA to thoroughly understand the ISSUE and how system decisions potentially drive DMC upward or downward
2. Engage and partner with NONTRADITIONAL STAKEHOLDERS to explore solutions and implement reform exercises and behaviors
3. Develop understanding and capacity to match the needs of the population with COMMUNITY RESOURCES, and to better utilize such resources as alternatives to detention.
4. Have POLITICAL WILL to address the problem
5. Are INTENTIONAL in their reduction efforts
6. Experience an authentic CULTURE SHIFT toward least-restrictive
What Have We Learned
Systems Are Unbelievably Entrenched Adults Behave Worse Than Children Jurisdictions Cannot Do It W/O Help Consistency and Intentionality Key Correlation Between Leadership/Results Passion, Urgency and Humility Required
ANNIE E. CASEY FOUNDATION www.aecf.org
JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/cfcc/resources/publications/journal
W. Haywood Burns Institute www.burnsinstitute.org
OJJDP www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/dmc_ta_manual/dmcch4.pdf
SANTA CRUZ COUNTY PROBATION http://sccounty01.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/prb/index.asp
ResourcesResources