View
216
Download
2
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 1
Michael Thompson, DirectorCouncil of State Governments Justice Center
July 28, 2014 Washington, D.C.
Measuring and Using Juvenile Recidivism Data to Inform Policy, Practice, and Resource Allocation
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 2
Dramatic Progress But More Work Needed
*Easy Access to the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention*Juvenile Arrest Rates for All Crimes, 1980-2011, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
-100%
-90%
-80%
-70%
-60%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
-48%
-79%
-68%-77% -78%
-72%
Declines in State Commitment Rates(1997-2011)
National Avg. Connecticut Georgia
Mississippi Rhode Island Tennessee
National Arrests Per 100,000 Juveniles Ages 10-17 (1980-2011)
19801982
19841986
19881990
19921994
19961998
20002002
20042006
20082010
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
-51% Decrease From
Peak
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 3
Most states are not sufficiently tracking recidivism data for youth under the custody of their state juvenile correctional agency
39
11
Does your state track recidivism for youth in state custody?
Yes No Technical violations of parole
Re-arrests
Needs
Risk level
Length of stay
Program
Locale
Offense
Of the 39 states, how many track recidivism in more than one form of contact with the justice system?
Of the 39 states, how many analyze recidivism according to?
11
12
12
21
23
23
31
29
24
Into adult criminal justice system
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 4
Key Recommendations
Measure recidivism for all youth involved with the juvenile justice system, considering the multiple ways they may have subsequent contact with the justice system
Develop and maintain the infrastructure necessary to collect, analyze, and report recidivism data
Make recidivism data available to key constituents and the general public
Analyze recidivism data to account for youth’s risk levels, as well as other key youth characteristics and variables
Use recidivism data to inform juvenile justice policy, practice, and resource allocation
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 5
Michael Thompson, DirectorCouncil of State Governments Justice Center
July 28, 2014 Washington, D.C.
Core Principles for Reducing Recidivism and Improving Other Outcomes for Youth in the Juvenile Justice System
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 6
How to Use the White Paper
Develop a full understanding of what works Integrate distinct improvement strategies
Operationalize these principles with fidelity to the research
Assess current efforts and measure progress towards improvement
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 7
Principle 1
Base supervision, service, and resource allocation decisions
on the results of validated risk and
needs assessments.
Core Principles
Principle 2
Adopt and effectively implement programs
and services demonstrated to
reduce recidivism and improve other youth outcomes, and use
data to evaluate the results and direct
system improvements.
Principle 3
Employ a coordinated approach across
service systems to address youth’s needs.
Principle 4
Tailor system policies, programs, and
supervision to reflect the distinct
developmental needs of adolescents.
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 8
White Paper and Issue Brief in Action
Piloting issue brief recommendations to help state
systems track recidivism and use this data to guide system decisions
and hold agencies accountable.
UT PA TNKS NE
Piloting white paper checklists to help state systems assess and
strengthen policies and practices to improve outcomes for youth
NE
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 9
Michael Thompson, DirectorCouncil of State Governments Justice Center
July 28, 2014 Washington, D.C.
Texas Juvenile Outcome Study
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 10
Dramatic Decline in Youth Committed to State Incarceration in Texas
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 20120
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
2007 Legislature
No commitment for misdemeanor offenses; $60 million in new community funding
2011 Legislature
Merge former TX Youth Commission and TX Juvenile Probation Commission into Texas Juvenile Justice Department (TJJD)
Total Texas Admissions to State Facilities (FY 2002 – FY 2012)
2009 Legislature
$45 million for Commitment Reduction Program with incentive funding for counties and community supervision
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 11
High State-Wide Recidivism Rates: Impact of Reforms on Recidivism a Significant Concern
Re-Arrest Rate
One-Year Rate (2011 Group)
Three-Year Rate (2010 Group)
Five-Year Rate (2008 Group)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
36%
67%
79%
45%
78%85%
Re-Arrest Rate of Proba-tioners
Re-Arrest Rate For Youth Released From State Facilities
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 12
High State-Wide Recidivism Rates (continued)
One-Year Rate (2011 Group)
Three-Year Rate (2010 Group)
Five-Year Rate (2008 Group)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
4%
14%
24%20%
49%54%
Incarceration Rate of Probationers
Incarceration Rate For Youth Released From State Facilities
Incarceration Rate
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 13
Reforms Shifted Funding from Incarceration to Community-Based Interventions
2004-2005 Biennial Budget 2014-2015 Biennial Budget
$289.9 Million
$327.2 Million
Institutions Community
$472.1 Million
$260.7Mil-lion
Institutions Community
Average Daily Population inState Correctional Facilities:
4,910
Average Daily Population inState Correctional Facilities:
1,066
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 14
Texas Juvenile Justice Study Questions
To what extent were the policy reforms effective in reducing the number of youth in state-run correctional facilities?
Are recidivism rates lower for the types of youth who used to be incarcerated in state correctional facilities, but who today are diverted from such incarceration settings?
How do recidivism rates compare from one community-based intervention to the next?
What might explain variations in recidivism rates among similar youth placed in under community supervision?
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 15
Most Extensive Data in the Country for the Study
Incorporates Data From:
Texas Department of Juvenile Justice – Case Records of Juveniles and State and County Expenditures Data
Texas Department of Public Safety
County Probation Departments
Population characteristics include demographics, County Placement, Program Participation, Referral / Disposition
Arrest trend data and criminal history files for each juvenile
Practices in eight county probation departments
487,602 Youth and 850,434 Records Tracked
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Juveniles Released
from Secure State
Facilities
Juveniles Placed on Deferred
Prosecution or Probation
Supervision
2005 2013
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 16
December 2014 release will have major impact both in Texas and nationally
Texas legislature will examine study findings in January 2015 and use results to inform major policy decisions
Study will guide national conversation as states who have reduced number of kids in secure confinement seek to understand better what policies and investments are effective in reducing subsequent contact with juvenile justice system
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 17
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.
Join our distribution list to receive CSG Justice Center project updates!
www.csgjusticecenter.org/subscribe
For more information, contact Josh Weber (jweber@csg.org)
Recommended