Improving Outcomes for Youth in Colorado
Second Presentation to Task Force: Assessment Findings July 23, 2018
CSG Justice Center Presenters:
Nancy Arrigona, Research
Shanelle Johnson, Juvenile Justice
Nina Salomon, Juvenile Justice
About The Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 2
National nonprofit, nonpartisan, membership
association of state government officials that
engages members of all three branches of
state government
Provides practical, nonpartisan research-driven
strategies and tools to increase public safety
and strengthen communities
About the National Reentry Resource Center
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 3
• Authorized by the passage of the Second Chance Act in April 2008
• Launched by The Council of State Governments (CSG)
Justice Center in October 2009 • Administered in partnership with the U.S. Department of
Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Colorado has a history of state leaders being committed to improving outcomes for youth in the juvenile justice system.
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 4
Improving conditions of confinement in Department of Youth
Services facilities
Expansion of the Collaborative Management Program to provide funding or youth and families involved with multiple agencies
Adoption and implementation of SB94 and reduction of detention bed admissions
History of collaboration through the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Council and the Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition
Commitment to transparency and improvement
Governor Hickenlooper launched IOYouth in May in partnership with Representative Lee, Justice Boatright, Senator Gardner, and Director Bicha.
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 5
A statewide task force oversees IOYouth to determine what steps can be taken to strengthen public safety and improve outcomes for youth.
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 6
Senator Bob Gardner, Cochair Colorado General Assembly Rep. Pete Lee, Cochair Colorado General Assembly Reggie Bicha Colorado Department of Human Services Justice Brian Boatright Supreme Court of Colorado Stacie Nelson Colling Office of the Alternate Defense Council Jeff Cuneo Colorado Juvenile Defender Center Sheri Danz Office of the Child Representative Julie DeNicola Stepping Stones Advocacy Hon. Leslie J. Gerbracht 3rd Judicial District Court Rebecca Gleason 18th Judicial District Arnold Hanuman Colorado District Attorney’s Council
Will Hays Hilltop Community Resources, JJDPC Emily Humphrey 8th Judicial District Anders Jacobson Division of Youth Services Bill Kilpatrick City of Golden Police Department Elizabeth (Elise) Logemann Colorado Bar Association Rep. Paul Lundeen Colorado General Assembly Daniel Makelky Douglas County Department of Human Services Hon. Ann Gail Meinster 1st Judicial District Court Lanie Meyers-Mireles Prowers County Department of Human Services Rep. Dafna Michaelson- Jenet Colorado General Assembly
Jenifer Morgen 17th Judicial District Barrie Newberger-King Office of the Colorado State Public Defender Mike O’Rourke 11th Judicial District Chris Ryan Colorado Judicial Branch Lindsey Sandoval Office of the Colorado State Public Defender Rebecca Wallace ACLU of Colorado Meg Williams Office of Adult and Juvenile Justice Assistance & Juvenile Parole Board Adam Zarrin Office of Governor John Hickenlooper
01 IOYouth Assessment Process
02 Assessment Results
03 Next Steps
Today’s presentation focuses on the front end of Colorado’s juvenile justice system.
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 8
Diversion
Detention and SB94
Case-level and survey data from multiple sources inform the assessment results presented today.
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 9
Data Source
Arrest Data Department of Public Safety, Division of
Criminal Justice Colorado Bureau of Investigation
SB94 Screening and Services Data Colorado Department of Human
Services, Division of Youth Services
Detention and Detention Screen Data Colorado Department of Human
Services, Division of Youth Services
DYS Budget and Expenditure Data Colorado Department of Human
Services, Division of Youth Services
Survey Data (Diversion) District Attorneys/ Diversion Directors
Notes about the System Assessment Results
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 10
1. Based on data available through the Department of Public Safety, Division of Criminal Justice, and the Department of Health Services, Division of Youth Services
2. Data includes information on:
• Youth referred to and provided services through SB94 • Youth screened for detention • Youth admitted to and released from detention • Appropriations and expenditures for SB94 and DYS detention
• Details findings from:
• FY2013 to FY2017 for juvenile detention screens and youth detained • FY2015 to FY2017 for juveniles receiving SB94 services • 2012 to 2016 for juvenile arrests
Since the last IOYouth Task Force meeting in May, CSG Justice Center staff have spoken with a wide array of stakeholders.
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 11
State and Local Agencies
• DYS Leadership and Staff
• Client Managers
• County DHS Leadership
• Department of Corrections Leadership
• Diversion Directors • SB94 Coordinators • Colorado Child Protection
Ombudsman • Colorado Public Education
Department
Court System • Juvenile Court Judges/Magistrates • District Attorneys • Public Defenders • Juvenile Probation • Probation Youth and Families
DYS Facilities • Lookout Mountain YSC Leadership and
Staff • Platte Valley YSC Leadership and Staff • J. Paul Taylor Center Supervisors and Staff • Grand Mesa YSC Leadership and Staff • Zebulon Pike YSC Leadership and Staff • Mount View YSC Leadership and Staff • Adams YSC Leadership • Gilliam YSC Leadership • Facility Youth and Families
Other Stakeholders • Law Enforcement • Colorado Municipal League • Community and Residential-based
Providers
The CSG Justice Center staff have gathered feedback from stakeholders across the state to ensure a diversity of perspectives.
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 12
Since February 2018…
• 4 Site visits – 1 to each DYS region
• Calls and meetings with more than 100 individuals
• 6 Facility Visits
The following goals and context help guide the IOYouth assessment in Colorado:
• The goal of the assessment is to identify key barriers to improving outcomes for youth and advance policy, funding, and practice changes to address these barriers.
• The assessment shows what is happening in Colorado’s juvenile justice system and whether policies and practices are aligned with what research shows works to improve outcomes for youth.
• Most, if not all, juvenile justice systems struggle to prevent youth from reoffending.
• Every state with which the CSG Justice Center has partnered struggles to match youth with the appropriate level, type, and quality of supervision and services.
• The CSG Justice Center commends state and local agencies for their transparency, willingness to have their challenges publically reviewed and discussed, and their commitment to improvement.
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 13
01 IOYouth Assessment Process
02 Assessment Results • Diversion
• Who is getting arrested? • Who is getting diverted? • What happens to youh on diversion?
• Detention
Next Steps 03
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 15
What does the research say about Diversion?
Court involvement for low-risk youth often does more harm than good and takes
limited resources away from focusing interventions on youth who are a threat to
public safety.
Most low risk youth, without court involvement, grow out of their behavior and stop
reoffending without system intervention.
Diversion is a more cost effective public safety strategy than court processing for low
risk youth.
Youth’s current offenses are a poor predictor of a youth’s risk to reoffend.
Restorative justice practices are an effective way to hold youth accountable for
repairing the harm caused to victims and communities and can reduce reoffending
and increase victim’s satisfaction with the justice system.
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 16
DIVERSION ASSESSMENT FINDINGS
Who is Getting Arrested?
Juvenile arrests have declined 18 percent between 2012 and 2016, with arrests for violent offenses increasing slightly.
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 17
11% 11%
24% 24%
7%
10%
25% 23%
33% 33%
2012 2016
Drug Property Violent Status Other
Juvenile Arrests, 2012 t0 2016 Juvenile Arrests by Type, 2012 to 2016
Black youth make up a small proportion of juvenile arrests but are almost three times more likely to be arrested than White youth.
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 18
Juvenile Age Population and Juvenile Arrests by Race/Ethnicity, 2016
56%
31%
7% 6%
50%
31%
17%
2%
White Hispanic Black Other
Juv Pop Juv Arrest
39.6 43.9
111.2
12.7
White Hispanic Black Other
Juvenile Arrest Rates per 1,000 by Race/Ethnicity, 2016
Youth arrested or served a summons may be directed to municipal or district court, depending on offense, and may be diverted pre- or post-filing of their case.
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 19
Cas
e N
ot
File
d
Case Sentenced
Juvenile Court Case Filed
Juvenile Arrests / Summons
Cas
e D
ism
isse
d
Possible Diversion Cases
Juvenile to Municipal Court
Juvenile to District Court
Cas
e D
iver
ted
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 20
DIVERSION ASSESSMENT FINDINGS
Who is Getting Diverted?
Colorado lacks a centralized approach to to tracking diversion participation, services, and outcomes. There is no statewide data system or entity
responsible for collecting, tracking, or
evaluating diversion data
There is no comprehensive picture of how
many youth get diverted statewide, who
gets diverted, and diversion outcomes
The Department of Criminal Justice (DCJ)
collects data on diversion programs funded
through the DCJ grant, however, this
represents only a subset of youth that are
diverted
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 21
From DCJ FY2016-2017 Evaluation
• 19 grant awards • 1350 youth began diversion • More than 50% were for
misdemeanor offenses • More than 2/3 were result of
property, theft or drug charges • Majority male, White, or
Hispanic
The CSG Justice Center conducted a survey of all judicial districts to better understand diversion programs across the state.
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 22
Survey sent to all 22 judicial districts to district attorneys and diversion
directors in Colorado
Survey Questions
Structure and oversight
Eligibility criteria
Programming and services
Funding sources
Data collection
21 responses
According to the survey, at least 2800
youth started diversion in FY2017, more
than double the number in the DCJ
evaluation.
District attorney offices administer the majority of juvenile diversion, with most jurisdictions offering diversion pre- and post-filing.
15
8
3 2
DAs Office Non-Profit Law Enforcement Municipality
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 23
In six JDs, multiple entities oversee diversion programs. Three JDs do not administer
juvenile diversion programs due to a lack of resources or too few kids eligible.
Pre File 1[VALUE].5
%
Pre and Post File
75%
Post File 12.5%
Pre Pre and Post Post
A variety of funding sources are used to support juvenile diversion programs.
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 24
5
4
7
6
11
12
Other
SB94
Marijuana Funds
County (non DA)
DCJ
DAs Office
12 judicial districts use multiple funding sources to fund diversion programs in their
jurisdictions. In three judicial districts, juvenile diversion is funded solely by the
district attorney’s office.
Eligibility criteria for diversion varies significantly across the state.
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 25
Broad statutory authority is provided to judicial districts to determine eligibility criteria for diversion
Districts do not see a lot of diversion failures as most diversion youth are first time low level offenders
Family support and stability is often a factor in determining youth eligibility, and some districts require families to pay for participation in diversion
Cases are often times formally filed in order to get other services for youth, like psychiatric evaluations, and JDs can always divert later
]Youth identified or perceived to have higher needs are often not diverted because of limited resources for services
Judicial districts report using a variety of factors to determine a youth’s eligibility for diversion.
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 26
6
3
8
12
10
14
15
Other
Ability to Pay
Family Support
Service Need
Risk to Reoffend
Prior Offenses
Current Offense
Other refers to victim input and youths’ amenability to treatment.
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 27
DIVERSION ASSESSMENT FINDINGS
What Happens to Youth on Diversion?
Diverted youth are usually supervised by a case manager or diversion officer, and average 6 months or more on supervision in nearly half of districts.
2
3
6
2
4
0 1 2 3 4+
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 28
Average Number of Monthly Contacts
with a Case Manager
2
6
9
9 Months - 1 Year
6-9 Months
3-6 Months
Average LOS on Diversion
In most districts, diverted youth are required to participate in services and programming.
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 29
3
14
0 0
Can Youth be Diverted Completely Without Supervision/Services?
Yes No
Judicial districts report a variety of
programming and services available
to youth on diversion, including
education, restorative justice,
restitution, community service, and
treatment.
Services are often paid for by
youth and families directly or
through insurance, in addition to
some funds used by the DA’s
offices and grant programs.
Diversion: Key Assessment Findings
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 30
1
2
3
Overall juvenile arrests are declining, however local discretion in arrest and referrals to court can lead to inconsistencies further in the juvenile justice system.
The structure and implementation of juvenile diversion varies significantly across jurisdictions in Colorado, resulting in inconsistent adherence to best practice and limited data on performance.
Youth who are diverted from formal court involvement still receive substantial system supervision and services.
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 31
Best Practices in Juvenile Diversion
Divert lower risk youth from system involvement; provide minimal or no supervision
for these youth; and focus limited resources on supervision/services for youth with a
high risk of reoffending.
Use risk screening tools to objectively identify low risk youth that are appropriate for
diversion.
Establish clear criteria to identify youth that should be eligible for and/or automatically
participate in diversion programs.
Use needs screening tools to identify youth with potential mental health and
substance use needs to match youth with appropriate services.
Collect data on diversion program participation and quality to evaluate performance.
Best Practices in Juvenile Diversion
01 IOYouth Assessment Process
02 Assessment Results • Diversion • Detention
• Who is getting detained? • How long are youth staying in detention? • Are youth in detention/alternatives getting needed services?
Next Steps 03
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 33
What does the research say about detention?
Research demonstrates that detention can have a negative impact on young people’s
mental and physical well-being, and when used inappropriately, detention may make it
more likely that youth will reoffend.
Youth who are detained are more likely to penetrate deeper into the juvenile justice
system than similar youth who are not detained.
Detention alternatives should be based on the principle of using the least restrictive
setting possible and on identifying and addressing youth’s needs as identified from
validated screening tools.
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 34
DETENTION ASSESSMENT FINDINGS
Who is Getting Detained?
Between 2013 and 2017, detention admissions declined by 18 percent while the juvenile age population increased 5 percent.
Juvenile Age Population and Detention Admissions FY2013 to FY2017
520000
530000
540000
550000
560000
570000
580000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17
Detention Admits Juvenile Age Pop
13.5
10.5
FY13 FY17
Detention Rate per 1,000 Juveniles in Population FY2013 and FY2017
Males represent 2/3 of new detention admissions, and minority youth comprise more than 60 percent of new detention admissions.
75%
25%
Male Female
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 36
40%
19%
38%
3%
White Black Hispanic Other
3%
19%
50%
29%
10-12 13-14
15-16 17+
Admissions by Gender, FY2017
44%
26%
23%
29%
Central Northeast Southern Western
Admissions by Region, FY2017 Admissions by Age, FY2017
Admissions by Race/Ethnicity, FY2017
Discretion in judicial district policies can lead to the placement of youth in secure detention that are not a public safety risk.
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 37
The JDSAG is used statewide to screen youth for detention eligibility;
however, screening policies and override guidelines are most often
determined by the chief judge.
In most judicial districts, youth with warrants are automatically detained
regardless of public safety risk or risk of reoffense.
Some magistrates report not always getting all of the information that they
need in order to make detention decisions.
The lack of collaboration in some districts across youth serving agencies can
lead to more youth being placed in secure detention.
More than 2/3 of youth screened on the JDSAG receive a mandatory hold to secure detention, but more than half are not identified as a public safety risk.
68% 32%
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 38
Of youth screened in FY2017 with
a Mandatory Hold:
• 52% were NOT considered a public safety risk
• 45% had committed a misdemeanor or lesser offense
• 34% were low risk
• 68% had a responsible adult to provide supervision if released
Reason for Mandatory Hold, FY2017
80%
16%
4%
Warrant Only
Offense Only Combination
Percent of Screens Resulting in a Mandatory Hold, FY2017
No Hold Mandatory Hold
Almost half of detention admissions are the result of a violation, the majority of which are for a failure to comply.
39% 45%
49% 49%
11% 5%
FY13 FY17 Offense Violation Sanction
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 39
Detention Admissions by Detention Reason*, FY2013 and FY2017
*”other” detention reason accounted for 1% of in both FY13 and FY17, missing not included
Failure to Comply: 66%
Failure to Appear: 23%
Probation Technical Violation: 11%
Truancy VCO: <1%
Type of Violation, FY2017
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 40
JDSAG Screen Results Compared to Actual Level Received, FY2017
Actual Level Received
Screen Level Secure
Detention Staff Secure
Residential or Shelter
Home Detention/
Services Release Total
Detention 93% 1% >1% 2% 3% 100% (5,755)
Staff Secure 91% 4% 2% 2% 1% 100% (265)
Residential 38% 2% 1% 30% 29% 100% (187)
Home Detention 34% 1% 1% 38% 26% 100% (833)
Release 23% 0% 0% 33% 44% 100% (228)
More than 1/3 of youth who screen to a level below secure detention on the JDSAG still end up in secure detention.
Detention rates vary by judicial district, from a high of 17.4 per 1,000 youth to a low of 2.2.
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 41
10.5
8.5
16.0
6.5
14.7
8.4
7.0
8.9
17.3
2.2
8.4
8.1
17.1
17.4
5.9
9.2
6.5
8.1
2.8
10.5
15.2
16.6
12.9
0 5 10 15 20
Total State
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Judicial
District
Rate of Detention (per 1,000 youth) by Judicial
District, FY2017
Less than 8 per 1,000
8 – 11 per 1,000 More than 11
per 1,000
Females are more likely to be detained for a violation and for a misdemeanor or petty/status offense than males.
47%
38%
46%
55%
6% 5%
Male Female
Offense Violation Sanction
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 42
41%
30%
27%
34%
4%
8%
Male Female
Felony Misdemeanor Petty/Status
Detention Reason by Gender, FY2017 Offense Level by Gender, FY2017
Black youth are more likely to be arrested via warrant or on-view, and White youth are more likely to be arrested through a summons, which can lead to differences in detention rates.
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 43
Percent Resulting in On-View Arrest by Offense Type and Race/Ethnicity, 2016
White Hispanic Black
Custody/Warrant 19% 26% 35%
On-View 19% 25% 33%
Summons 62% 49% 32%
Total 100% 100% 100%
Juvenile Arrests by Type and Race/Ethnicity, 2016
53%
56%
38%
38%
43%
26%
40%
25%
13%
Violent
Property
Drug
White Hispanic Black
Black youth were more than 4 times as likely to be detained, and Hispanic youth almost twice as likely, as White youth.
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 44
30.4
28.4
13.6
7.6
7.6
7.5
Urban FY17
Rural FY17
White Hispanic Black
9.4
37.9
17.8
7.6
30.4
12.9
White Black Hispanic
FY13 FY17
Statewide Detention Rates per 1,000 by Race/Ethnicity, FY2013 and FY2017
Detention Rates per 1,000 by Rural/Urban by Race/Ethnicity, FY2017
Detention rates vary for minority youth across judicial districts.
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 45
Less than 8 per 1,000
8 – 11 per 1,000 More than 11
per 1,000
Rate of Detention (per 1,000 youth) by Judicial District and Race, FY2017
WHITE HISPANIC AFRICAN-AMERICAN
The average cost per detention bed per day increased 40 percent between FY2013 and FY2017, primarily due to increases in direct care staff and declines in youth detained.
$204.50
$286.58
FY13 FY17
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 46
ADP: 308 ADP: 257
Average Cost per Bed per Day for Detention, FY2013 and FY2017
$286.58
$407.96
Cost per Bed Cost per Youth
ADP: 257 ADP: 366
Average Cost per Bed and per Youth for Detention, FY2013 and FY2017
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 47
DETENTION ASSESSMENT FINDINGS
How long are youth staying in detention?
Overall lengths of stay in detention has remained the same, with detentions resulting from offenses/violations decreasing slightly.
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 48
16.0
15.7
17.2
15.6
9.2
11.6
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017
Offense
Violation
Sanction
Average Length of Stay (days) in Detention by Detention Reason,
FY2013 – FY2017
Average LOS in Detention
FY2013: 15.1 days
FY2017: 15.3 days
Detention lengths of stay vary by judicial district, from a low of 7.3 days to a high of 25.9 days.
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 49
10.1
15.1
10.5
13.1
14.3
15.5
11.2
25.9
9.5
11.7
15.7
7.3
13.0
16.3
12.9
17.9
15.7
14.8
18.4
8.4
17.0
12.1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Judicial
District
Average Length of Stay (days) in Detention by
Judicial District, FY2017
Less than 10 days 10 – 14 days More than 14 days
The length of stay in detention for males is longer than females on average for the same offense type.
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 50
16.0
13.1
All offenses
Male Female
Average Length of Stay (days) in
Detention by Gender, FY2017
15.7
18.6
17.4
21.7
10.8
13.2 Male
Female
LOS for Petty Offenses
LOS for Violent Felony Offenses
LOS for Felony Offenses
Male
Female
Male
Female
The length of stay in detention for Black youth is longer than White youth on average for the same offense type, particularly felonies.
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 51
14.4 15.1
17.5
All offenses
White Hispanic Black
Average Length of Stay (days) in
Detention by Race/Ethnicity, FY2017
20
17.7
17
24.1
20.9
17.8
9.1
10.9
10.7 White
Black
LOS for Petty Offenses
LOS for Violent Felony Offenses
LOS for Felony Offenses
White
Black
White
Black
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Youth undergoing DHS placement evaluation or awaiting DHS placement on average remain in detention longer than other youth.
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 52
27.8
15.3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Awaiting DHS Action Not Awaiting DHS Action
Average Length of Stay (days) in Detention for Youth
Awaiting a DHS Action, FY2017
Source: DYC detention youth awaiting placement evaluation or placement
decision, June 2017.
In FY2017, 19% of youth
released from state-
operated detention
facilities were involved
with DHS, awaiting an
evaluation or placement
prior to release.
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 53
DETENTION ASSESSMENT FINDINGS
Are youth in detention/alternatives getting
needed services?
Many jurisdictions cite a lack sufficient alternatives to detention in the community, which results in inappropriate placements.
Many judicial districts report a lack of less secure alternatives to detention,
including the use of shelters beds, residential placements, foster care, etc.
Youth with significant mental health needs, low cognitive abilities, and other
more intensive needs often end up in detention due to a lack of alternative
placements.
Youth who fail out of DHS placements often penetrate into the detention
system.
SB94 is often used by jurisdictions to also assess and provide services to
youth that are on probation, committed, or diverted, stretching resources.
Youth are often detained to receive assessments/evaluations and to
coordinate service delivery at release
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 54
Youth that are diverted, committed, or that receive violations are often referred to SB94 for assessment, however in half of these cases services are found not to be needed by youth.
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 55
51% 50%
42%
17% 15% 10%
Co
mm
itte
d
Div
ersi
on
VC
O
Sen
ten
ced
Pre
adju
dic
ated
Mu
nic
ipal
% of SB94 Cases Found Not in Need of Services by Legal Status, FY2017
56.79
11.16
SB94 Case
Did Not Need Services All Other Outcomes
SB94 Case LOS (days) by Outcome, FY2017
In FY2017, less than half of SB94 resources allocated by DYS provided direct services to youth.
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 56
8247 7742
7520
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
$10.0
$10.5
$11.0
$11.5
$12.0
$12.5
$13.0
FY15 FY16 FY17
Mill
ion
s
Cases Started Budget
FY 2015
$1,476
FY 2017
$1,647
Average Cost per SB94 Case Started, FY15 and FY17
SB94 Allocation and Cases Started, FY2015 and FY2017
34% 27% 22% 8% 9%
Direct Support Supervision Assessment Treatment / Restorative Plan Admin
SB94 Allocation by Service Type, FY17
Client assessment/evaluation is the most frequent type of service provided to youth through SB94.
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 57
SB94 Services by Type, FY2017 47%
31%
16%
4% 2% 1%
Ass
essm
ent/
Eval
uat
ion
Dir
ect
Sup
po
rt
Sup
ervi
sio
n
Trea
tmen
t
Res
tora
tive
Ser
vice
s
Serv
ice
Ref
erra
l
22% of SB94 cases are for
assessments/evaluations only,
and do not involve any services
Assessment/evaluation can
include medical, mental health,
substance use, CJRA pre-screen
and/or full assessment, JDSAG,
psychological, among others.
Jurisdictions lack protocols to ensure that youth served through SB94 have their needs accurately identified and met.
23% 21%
Substance Use Screening or Monitoring
No Need Need
SB94 Cases by Identified Substance Use Need, FY2017
69% 76%
Direct Support Services
No Need Need
33% 28%
Supervision
No Need Need
Youth with identified substance use needs
received the same level of SB94 services as youth without an identified
need.
At least one-third of youth detained in FY2017 were identified as having substance use, mental health, or trauma related needs.
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 59
30%
28%
FY13 FY17
History of Abuse /Neglect
34%
41%
FY13 FY17
Disruptive Substance
Use
Needs* of Detention Admissions, FY2013 and FY2017
History of Abuse/Neglect
Disruptive Substance Use
63% 61%
37% 39%
FY13 FY17
No MH Need MH Need
Mental Health Need
* As identified by the CJRA Screen
43%
39%
49%
26%
33%
36%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Abuse/Neglect
SU Disruption
MH Need
Male Female
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 60
Females entering detention have higher identified needs than males.
Mental Health Need, Substance Use Disruption, and History of Abuse/Neglect by Gender, FY2017
37%
39%
54%
29%
29%
29%
23%
33%
29%
Abuse/ Neglect
SU Disruption
MH Need
Hispanic Black White
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 61
White youth in detention are identified as having higher needs than minority youth.
Mental Health Need, Substance Use Disruption, and History of Abuse/Neglect by Race/Ethnicity, FY2017
Youth in secure detention have high needs, but do not always have access to services and treatment that address their needs.
Services in secure detention are often only meeting youths’ basic needs.
Services in secure detention are meant to be short-term; however, youth
with longer LOS often do not receive the services or treatment that they
need and typically repeat programs.
Staff report that they do not receive the necessary trauma-informed
training to support the needs of youth that are in detention.
Youth often are unable to start receiving more intensive mental health
treatment while in secure detention and typically just receive psycho-
social evaluations and/or crisis stabilization services.
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 62
Diversion: Key Assessment Findings
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 63
1
2
3
A significant proportion of youth that are detained are not identified as a public safety risk and detention rates vary substantially by district and youth demographics, in part due to discretion in how youth are referred for screening and how the screening tool is used across districts.
Lengths of stay in detention vary significantly based on judicial district and youth demographics, with males, Black youth, and those involved with the child welfare system having the longest stays.
Districts are not fully using SB94 to provide needed detention alternatives, and more generally, SB94 is not being used efficiently to target specific youth and identify and address their needs. At the same time, youth who are detained are not receiving needed services.
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 64
Best Practices in the Appropriate Use of Detention
Reserve costly secure detention beds for youth who are a direct risk to public safety or
flight risk.
Establish specific criteria, policies, and training on the use of detention screening
instruments, overrides, and secure vs. alternative vs. no detention.
Establish a continuum of alternatives to detention supervision and services in the
community matched to the risks and needs of youth.
Limit the use of detention as a response to technical violations or failures to comply
with supervision, unless youth are at imminent risk of harming themselves or others.
Develop strategies to better understand and expressly address racial and other types
of disparities in the use of and lengths of stay in detention.
01 IOYouth Assessment Process
02 Assessment Results • Diversion • Detention
03 Next Steps
Immediate Next Steps
2 Present assessment findings related to disposition, probation, commitment, and placement to the task force (September 6)
Establish working groups focused on disposition/supervision to develop policy recommendations for full task force consideration (September/October)
Reach consensus as a task force around policy options to translate into legislation (October 31)
3
4
1 Establish working groups focused on diversion and detention to develop policy recommendations for full task force consideration (July/August)
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 66
Diversion and Detention Working Groups’ Timeline & Next Steps
July 24
• In-person meeting to review findings, identify priorities, and begin discussing recommendations
Mid-August
• In-person meeting to solidify recommendations for the full task force
Week of August 27
• Conference call to prepare for the full task force presentation
September 6
• Presentation of recommendations to full task force
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 67
IOYouth timeline and next steps
Council of State Governments Justice Center | 68
May June July Sep Oct Nov Dec
Task Force Meeting #1
Project Launch Task Force Meeting #2
2019 Session April
Initial Data Analysis
Detailed Data Analysis Final Data Analysis Impact Analysis
Stakeholder Engagement Policy Option Development
Bill Drafting
Policymakers, Media and
Stakeholder Engagement
Policy Rollout and Bill
Introduction
Task Force Meeting #4
Task Force Meeting #3