Better Responses to Youth Status OffensesNovember 12, 2013

Photo: Jen Pagonis (_pidge)

MARIE WILLIAMS | Coalition for Juvenile Justice

ANNIE SALSICH | Vera Institute of Justice

TARA GRIESHOP-GOODWIN | Kentucky Youth Advocates

• 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

Annie SalsichDirector, Center on Youth JusticeVera Institute of Justice

Our Speakers

Tara Grieshop-GoodwinChief Policy OfficerKentucky Youth Advocates

Marie WilliamsActing Executive DirectorCoalition for Juvenile Justice

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

One of the Original Core RequirementsYouth 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 - 1984Youth 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.

Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders(DSO) Core Requirement of the JJDPA

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.

Is the Valid Court Order Exception still used?

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.

•

Nationwide Concern about Status Offender Detention

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.

JJDPA Reauthorization Push to Improve Outcomes

• 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 AdministratorsFight Crime Invest in KidsNational PTA

Broad Consensus to Eliminate ALL Detention for Youth Charged with

Status Offenses

– 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 skill-building components;

– Family and community-connected services/interventions produce the most positive outcomes for youth development and community safety.

National, State and Local Trends Support Deinstitutionalization

• 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.

States Leading the Charge to Avoid Detention

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 PowerProfiled 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 InvolvementDiscusses 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 InvolvementFocuses 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 PoliciesProposes 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

DefinitionsCommon terms referred to in the Standards.

Slide 29

Beyond Courts to Communities: Better Ways of Responding to Status Offenses

November 12, 2013

Annie SalsichDirectorCenter on Youth Justice

April 19, 2023

Slide 30 • April 19, 2023

• 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

Presentation Outline

Slide 31 • April 19, 2023

• 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 .  

Why Status Offense Reform

Slide 32 • April 19, 2023

• 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

Why Status Offense Reform

Slide 33 • April 19, 2023

• 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.

What System Change Looks Like

Slide 34 • April 19, 2023

• 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

What System Change Looks Like

Slide 35 • April 19, 2023

Three Examples from the Field:

• Florida• Calcasieu Parish, LA • New York State

What System Change Looks Like

Slide 36 • April 19, 2023

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

Florida

Slide 37 • April 19, 2023

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

Florida (cont)

Slide 38 • April 19, 2023

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 MARCEngaged in a comprehensive planning process,

which included reviewing FINS data, surveying youth and providers, and visiting model sites

Calcasieu Parish, Lousiana

Slide 39 • April 19, 2023

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

Calcasieu Parish (cont)

Slide 40 • April 19, 2023

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.

New York State

Slide 41 • April 19, 2023

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 non-secure 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.

New York State (cont.)

Slide 42 • April 19, 2023

• 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

How to access guidance in this area

Slide 43 • April 19, 2023

• 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

Status Offense Reform Center

Kentucky Progress on Status Offenses: Creating Environment for Reform

Tara Grieshop-Goodwin

Kentucky Youth Advocates

50 statesamong

Data reported by Coalition for Juvenile Justice

Youth locked up for status offenses

4th highest

From 2nd to

Use of secure detention has dropped in recent years for status offenses

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

9981,076

1,555

1,909

2,270

1,9511,765

1,5401,335

1,090

# of Boo...

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 initiativesTask Force developing recommendations

Questions?Tara Grieshop-GoodwinChief Policy OfficerKentucky Youth Advocatestgrieshop@kyyouth.org502-895-8167 x118

Contact Info

www.njjn.org www.juvjustice.org

Tara Grieshop-GoodwinChief Policy OfficerKentucky Youth Advocatestgrieshop@kyyouth.org502-895-8167 x118

Marie WilliamsActing Executive DirectorCoalition for Juvenile Justicewilliams@juvjustice.org202-467-0864, ext. 113

Annie Salsich, DirectorCenter for Youth JusticeVera Institute of Justiceasalsich@vera.org(212) 376-3169