Council of State Governments Justice Center | 1 Michael Thompson, Director Council of State...

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


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


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


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




Core Principles for Reducing Recidivism and Improving Other Outcomes for Youth in the Juvenile Justice System


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


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.


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




Texas Juvenile Outcome Study


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


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


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


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


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?


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


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


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 ([email protected])

Council of State Governments Justice Center | 1 Michael Thompson, Director Council of State...

Documents

Transcript of Council of State Governments Justice Center | 1 Michael Thompson, Director Council of State...