Close to Home:
Promoting Effective Interventions
for Youth in their Home
Communities
May 30th, 2013
Agenda
Introduction
Marie Williams,
Deputy Executive Director, Coalition for Juvenile Justice
National Implications of the Close to Home Approach
(15 mins)
Elizabeth Clarke, Juvenile Justice Initiative of Illinois
Close to Home in New York (20 mins)
Vincent Schiraldi,
Commissioner, NYC Department of Probation
The Role of State Advisory Groups (10 mins)
Esther Franco-Payne, Metropolis Strategies, Illinois SAG
Q&A (15 mins)
Redeploy Illinois & Implications for
National Trends
Elizabeth Clarke, Juvenile Justice Initiative
Illinois
The Problem in Illinois
• Confinement Expensive
▫ $70,000 and
up/year/bed
• Confinement Ineffective
▫ Over 50% repeat
offending rate
The Problem . . .
• Overreliance on
Confinement due to lack of
local alternatives
▫ Nearly 30% of juvenile
correctional population
committed for court ordered
mental health evaluation
(“bring-back” orders)
▫ 10%-12% of the youth
correctional population
comprised “court evals”
• Fiscal structure encouraged
committing youth to statefunded corrections rather
than finding a local (county)
solution.
• If a youth is sent to the state,
it costs the county less, when
community-based
alternatives are lacking.
Research
• The Illinois Department of
Corrections documented
overreliance on corrections for
youth…..particularly youth
committed for “evaluation”
• Research documented success of
alternatives to detention in IL. –
particularly evening reporting
centers
• Research documented success of
evidence -based programming –
i.e. Multi-Systemic Therapy,
Family Functional Therapy
Developing a Consensus for
Change
• Early on (mid-1990s), RECLAIM Ohio emerged as
an interesting model for y0uth corrections reform
in Illinois
• 2003 – JJ reformers host series of discussions
with key stakeholders in government, service,
university, and advocacy sectors; Illinois
legislators involved
• Public education & coalition building -- regional
public opinion polls, legislative hearings, regional
summits
Principles
• Restorative justice
• Youth should be treated in least restrictive
manner
• Continuum of services and sanctions in
communities; local options
• Local responsibility
• Public safety/accountability
• Program accountability
Implementation
• Redeploy Oversight Board:
Judges, Prosecutors, Probation,
County, State agency
representatives from child
welfare and corrections, youth
advocacy organizations,
researchers
• Application Process:
▫ Series of public hearings to solicit
input from community leaders on
Redeploy Illinois - this community
input was integrated into RFP
process
▫ Public hearings all held in sites of
pilot DMC communities
• Applications:
▫ Hesitation of counties to apply
due to the possible
implementation of penalties
First Year Results
• 4 pilot sites: 3 counties & one judicial circuit
(which included 12 counties)
• Overall a 33 percent reduction in juvenile
commitments to state corrections; no evidence
of significant increase in local detention
utilization
Second Year Results
• 44% reduction in commitments
Redeploy in Operation Today
• Original 4 sites expanded to 8 sites covering 28
counties
• Planning grants initiated – requirement that site
must conduct a planning grant assessment prior to
submitting proposal
• Active involvement of Oversight Board
• Tech assistance provided via “All Sites” mtngs
• Youth incarceration reductions continue to exceed
25%....with a 51% reduction over baseline in
Redeploy sites since 2006.
• All sites use a common assessment tool (YASI)
• All sites use evidence-based programming
• All sites have increased local collaboration
What are the national
implications of the
Redeploy Illinois and Close
to Home experiences?
Shift to Use of Incarceration as a
Last Resort
• Legislators and policymakers increasingly aware:
▫ That U.S. incarcerates at five times the rate of next
closest nation
▫ That incarceration is too expensive to use except as
a last resort – and a pressing need to realign
limited state resources to community based
alternatives
▫ That incarceration – especially of low level
offenders – is a failed policy
States rapidly
closing/downsizing
• Washington DC saved $18.5 million between ’05-’09 by closing Oak
Hill, a 188 bed facility, and created a 60 bed facility in a therapeutic
and homelike environment with full educational services.
• Kansas saved $1.4 million by closing one 66 bed facility for girls, Beloit
Juvenile Correctional Facility. The overall juvenile correctional
population has now declined by 19% from 410 in 2007 to 332 in 2010.
• Indiana saved $4 million annually by closing the N.E. Indiana Juvenile
Correctional Facility.
• Alabama shifted $2.4 million to community-based programs by
decreasing commitments by 55% (from 1,084in ‘07 down to 490).
And…..
• Arizona saved $2.5 million by closing a facility and decreasing
its juvenile correctional population from 600 in ’08 to 400 by
’12.
• Arkansas decreased commitments by 20% from ’08-’11.
• Connecticut saved $3 million, which was reinvested in
programming, by closing a 94 bed facility at New Haven.
• Florida saved $130 million by decreasing the number of beds
from 6,012 in 2006 to 3,455 in 2011.
• Georgia saved $26 million by closing four facilities and
downsizing another youth facility.
And…..
• Missouri saved a half a million annually by closing six juvenile
detention facilities.
• Ohio saved $57 million by closing four juvenile prisons and downsizing
the remaining facilities. The state reinvested the savings in
community based programming through Reclaim Ohio and other
community alternatives.
• South Carolina reduced its youth incarceration population by 71% over
the past decade and transferred corrections staff to community
program offices.
• Wisconsin closed two facilities by reducing its juvenile incarceration by
70% over the past decade.
• Illinois reduced its juvenile incarceration by half over the past decade,
and is in the process of closing two juvenile prisons, and has already
closed one juvenile detention center – all while shifting some state
resources to community alternatives through Redeploy Illinois.
And…..
• And the Big Three:
• California decreased the number of youth in confinement by 89%,
down from 9,572 in 1996 to 1,082 at end of 2011, and shifted
resources to local counties.
• Texas closed five facilities and reduced its population from 4,800 in
2006 to 1,798 in 2010, saving the state $115 million. Nearly forty
percent of the savings was reinvested in diversion funding in juvenile
probation departments.
• New York downsized/closed 31 facilities since 2007, recognizing a $58
million savings. Some of the savings is now being realigned to New
York City to manage its youth population closer to home, as part of the
Close to Home Initiative.
Many Factors at play in move to
Reduce Reliance on
Incarceration:
• Fiscal considerations
• Research documenting that incarceration is the least
effective disposition
• Awareness through conditions lawsuits of abuses and
lack of services/education in juvenile facilities
• Advocacy and education by by human rights advocates
• Media attention to failed policies and inadequate
conditions
• Public opinion polling documenting public support for
community alternatives rather than incarceration
• Increasing awareness that U.S. stands alone in its heavy
reliance on incarceration
Push from Fiscal Priorities
• Recession in U.S. has caused states to reconsider costly
incarceration policies.
• Annual cost of bed in juvenile prison in Illinois ranges from
$75,000 – over $200,000 depending on facility and number of
beds.
• Costs go deeper than per bed annual costs – pension benefits
for prison guards who are state employees threaten state
solvency for decades to come.
• Costs of conditions lawsuits (California, Ohio, Texas, Illinois,
Arizona) also a factor in fiscal considerations.
• A handful of communities benefit from prison jobs, while all
communities need alternatives and interventions.
Push from Research on
What Works
• Government and private foundations have invested in research
to document the impact of community based alternatives to
incarceration.
• Evidence based alternatives have proved effective:
▫ MST – multi-systemic therapy and FFT – functional family
therapy – work with families to overcome issues that led to
behavior in conflict with law
▫ Treatment fidelity is vital
▫ Clinical trials demonstrate reduced short and long term rates
of criminal offending
▫ Cost benefit analysis demonstrates significant cost savings
compared to incarceration $2.5 savings : $1 spent
http://www.jsna.info/download/get/mst-and-fft-evidencereview/15.html
Pathways to Desistance
• Longitudinal research project, studying 1,354 serious
juvenile offenders from age 14-18 over more than 7
years
• Funded in part by MacArthur Foundation’s Models for
Change Initiative
• Findings based on both self-reports and arrest and court
records
• Youth in conflict with law over range of offenses from
violent, including murder, to relatively minor property
and drug offenses
• Findings document the relative ineffectiveness of longer
juvenile incarcerations in reducing juvenile recidivism.
• Findings conclude most effective – community based
substance abuse treatment
• https://ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/230971.pdf
Push from Leadership
• Missouri’s Dept. of Youth Services hailed as national
model
• Child welfare therapeutic approach
• Limited use of locked facilities with range of
alternative placements including group homes and
day treatment
• Individualized case planning with counselor following
case from beginning to end
• Emphasis on pathway to success for positive youth
outcome – extensive educational and vocational
programs and activities
• Criminal records expunged at point of discharge
Push from Conditions Lawsuits
• Horrific conditions of confinement have forced prison closures/downsizing and
reforms in many states, including:
▫ California – officials traveled to Missouri and concluded the conditions in
California youth prisons were beyond reform – most have now been closed and
savings shifted to community alternatives.
▫ Texas – a bi-partisan legislature passed a massive reform bill that included
prohibition on incarceration of misdemeanor offenders and significant reforms.
Several facilities have been closed and savings shifted to community
alternatives.
▫ Ohio – a bi-partisan legislature passed a massive reform bill that included
prohibition on incarceration of low level offenders and a shift of savings from
prison closings to community alternatives.
▫ And now Illinois – two lawsuits, one over inadequate conditions in juvenile
prisons (inadequate education and mental health programming and excessive
discipline practices), and another lawsuit over lack of due process in parole
(discharge) process.
Push from Advocacy Groups
• Particularly concerns over disparate use of
incarceration for minority youth.
• Nationally, African American youth under age 18
represent 15% of the juvenile population, but make
up:
• 26% of juvenile arrests
• 31% of referrals to juvenile court
• 44% of the detained population
• 34% of youth formally processed by juvenile court
• 46% of youth sent to adult court
• 32% of youth adjudicated delinquent
• 40% of youth in residential placement
• 58% of youth in state adult prisons
www.ojjdp.gov/dmc
Close to Home
NYC Department of Probation
Vincent Schiraldi
Commissioner, NYC Department
of Probation
The New York City
Close to Home Story
Introduction
• Background to Close to Home Story
• Key Elements of Close to Home
• Experiences Thus Far
A System in Turmoil
• Bronx youth dies in custody at state facility in 2006
• Scathing ACLU/Human Rights Watch study of girls in
state facilities entitled “Custody and Control”
released in 2006
• US Department of Justice launches investigation and
issues highly critical report between 2007-2009
• Legal Aid Society files law suit in 2009
A System in Turmoil, Cont.
• Governor’s Task Force issues final report in 2009
• OCFS Commissioner validates concerns
• Research studies document high recidivism (66%
re-arrested within 2 years and 80% of boys rearrested by age 28)
System in Turmoil, Cont.
• The next two slides will illustrate the extremely
high cost ($260,000 + per year) of placing youth
in state custody even as the numbers of youth
sent “upstate” dramatically declined over the
past decade.
• In December 2010, in one of his first acts as
Governor elect, Andrew Cuomo visited a fully
staffed yet empty Tryon facility, declaring it an
icon of government waste.
Placement Population Decreasing
without Cost Savings
Review of National Examples of
Realignment
• Team from New York visits Wayne County, MI
• Literature reviews and interviews with key
stakeholders involved with:
• Reclaim Ohio
• Redeploy Illinois and
• California Reinvestment
What is Realignment?
A shift in responsibility and resources for
providing juvenile justice services,
supervision, and residential care for
adjudicated youth from the state to local
governments.
A Path to Realignment in
New York
• Formation of Dispositional Reform Steering
Committee in October 2010
• Inclusion of all key Stakeholders (Judges, Defense
Bar, Prosecutors, Police, Education, Mental
Health, Probation, Children’s Services, Mayor’s
Office, Researchers, Advocates, Family Members)
• Committee Issues Final Report in 2012
Path to Realignment in
New York
• Governor signs Close to Home legislation in March 2012
• Non Secure Placement (NSP) Plan submitted to State in June 2012
▫ Link to Limited Secure Draft Plan: March 2013:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/acs/html/close_to_home/close_to_home
_links2.shtml
▫ Link to Final Non Secure Placement Plan:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/acs/html/close_to_home/close_to_ho
me_plan.shtml
• 200 + youth placed in non secure programs between 9/12 and 4/13
• Limited Secure Placement (LSP) Draft Plan submitted in March 2013
• Approximately 120 Limited Secure transfers will begin in Fall 2013
Benefits of a Realigned
System
• Connection to Community
• Safer Communities
• Better Family Engagement
• Access to Counsel
• Better educational outcomes
• Improved Oversight
Probation’s Role in
Close to Home
• Created graduated levels of probation supervision and
services
• Implemented objective/validated Pre-Dispositional RAI
• Created state-of-the-art Structured Decision Making
(SDM) grid that uses risk level and offense severity to
guide Probation’s dispositional recommendations to the
Court
• Expanded continuum of community-based alternatives
to placement
SDM MATRIX
MOST SERIOUS CURRENT
ARREST CHARGE
LIKELIHOOD OF RE-ARREST (PER YLS ASSESSMENT)
HIGH OR VERY HIGH
MODERATE
LOW
BOX #1
Out of Home Placement1
BOX #2
Out of Home Placement or
Alternative to Placement
BOX #3
Alternative to Placement or
Probation (To Be Specified)
CLASS II: Non-violent C
felonies, violent D felonies
BOX #4
Out of Home Placement or
Alternative to Placement
BOX #5
Alternative to Placement or
ESP (Level 3 Probation)
BOX #6
Level 1 or 2 Probation
CLASS III: Non violent D, All E
felonies, misd assault and misd
weapons possession
BOX #7
Alternative to Placement or
ESP (Level 3 Probation)
BOX #8
Level 1 or 2 Probation
BOX #9
Level 1 Probation
or CD
CLASS IV: A misdemeanors
except assault and weapons and
all B misdemeanors2
BOX #10
Level 1 or 2 Probation
BOX #11
CD or ACD
BOX #12
ACD or short term one time
consequence or Dismissal
CLASS I: A, B felonies (violent &
non-violent), violent C felonies
MANDATORY CONSIDERATIONS:
1. Must consider CD or ACD for youth with no unsealed priors. Decision is based on the circumstances of the case.
2. If case goes to trial, use finding offense
DISCRETIONARY OVERRIDES:
POs have discretion to recommend either a more or less restrictive option than the grid provides. However, all
overrides - up or down - must be submitted with justification for approval to the PO’s supervisor and Borough Director
1
All placement related processes will be handled by ACS
of these cases should be adjusted at intake
2 Many
Shaded boxes represent youth who are eligible for DOP’s and ACS’s ATP programs
Three new ATPs will be added to create a robust array of interventions
for delinquent youth at all risk/offense levels.
43
Experiences in Implementing Close
to Home Since September 2012
• 7 of 11 providers utilizing “Missouri Model”
• Learning curve for many providers serving exclusively
delinquent youth
• Educational gains - credits earned toward high school
graduation
• Attendance at school post-placement is higher than for
kids placed in secure or non-secure detention
• Behavioral issues in schools – competing modalities with
treatment providers
• SDM grid allows us to study patterns of decision-making
and to determine whether race or gender play a role in
dispositional recommendations
A total of 111 of the 168 NSP high school students
have earned high school credits while at Passages
Final Dispositions by YLS Risk Level,
May 2012 through February 2013
Dispositional overrides of SDM recommendations,
by cell, April 2012 through April 2013
MOST SERIOUS CURRENT
ARREST OFFENSE
CLASS I: A, B felonies
(violent & non-violent),
violent C felonies
CLASS II: Non-violent C
felonies, violent D felonies
CLASS III: Non violent D, All
E felonies, misd assault and
misd weapons possession
CLASS IV: A misdemeanors
except assault and weapons
and all B misdemeanors
LIKELIHOOD OF RE-ARREST (PER THE RAI)
HIGH
MEDIUM
Box 1:
Box 2: Out of Home
Out of home
Placement or ATP
placement
(0 out of 49 total
(0 out of 7,
for Boxes 2 and 4,
0.0%)
0.0%)
Box 4: Out of
Home Placement
Box 5: ATP or ESP
or ATP
(8 out of 66 total
(0 out of 49
for Boxes 5 and 7,
total for Boxes 2
12.1%)
and 4, 0.0%)
Box 7: ATP or
Box 8: Level 1 or 2
ESP
Probation
(8 out of 66
(51 out of 163 total
total for Boxes 5 for Boxes 6, 8, and
and 7, 12.1%)
10, 31.3%)
Box 10: Level 1 or
2 Probation
Box 11: CD or ACD
(51 out of 163
(43 out of 67,
total for Boxes
64.2%)
6, 8, and 10,
31.3%)
LOW
Box 3: ATP or
Probation
(0 out of 23,
0.0%)
Box 6: Level 1 or 2
Probation
(51 out of 163
total for Boxes 6,
8, and 10, 31.3%)
Box 9: Level 1
Probation or CD
(21 out of 58,
36.2%)
Box 12: ACD or
short-term
consequence or
Dismissal
(11 out of 28,
39.3%)
Six Month Re-Arrest Rates Among Youth
Opened for Adjustment in Jan-June 2012, by
SDM cell
Role of the State Advisory Groups
Esther Franco-Payne, Metropolis Strategies,
Illinois SAG
• The Illinois Juvenile Justice Commission (IJJC) is composed of 25
volunteers and professionals in the field of juvenile justice who are
appointed by the Governor. The IJJC:
▫ Advises the Governor, the General Assembly and the Illinois
Department of Human Services on policies and practices related to
the Illinois juvenile justice system.
▫ Is designated as the state advisory group (SAG)--required by the
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) to work in
partnership with OJJDP.
▫ Develops and implements Illinois’ three-year JJDPA plan and
administers federal JJDPA grant funds in Illinois.
▫ Administers the federal Juvenile Accountability Block Grants
Program in Illinois
The key strategies to accomplish the IJJC’s goals include:
• Policy -- Research, data analysis and reporting should guide the
development of effective and evidence-based juvenile justice policy in
Illinois.
• Practice -- By strengthening and creating new collaborative efforts
with the many participants in the juvenile justice system and by
helping with training and technical assistance, the Commission can
foster the implementation of effective, evidence-based practices.
• Programs-- The Commission will support continued research,
implementation of innovative models, the diffusion of effective
programs, and the development of best practices on emerging issues.
Serious Challenges Facing our
Communities in Illinois
• Around 1,500 youth are on juvenile parole or
aftercare statewide
• About 68% of youth who leave an Illinois DJJ facility
are reincarcerated within 3 years
DJ
J
DJ
J
What isn’t working?
• The current system doesn’t treat our youth like
the children they are
1.
2.
3.
4.
Adult surveillance parole system
Parole is revoked for “technical violations”
Children spend too long on parole
Youth and communities are shut out of the
process
IJJC Recommendations
1. Instead of an Adult Based Surveillance System,
expand Aftercare
2. Instead of returning youth to prison, use
graduated sanctions for minor violations
3. Instead of remaining on parole until 21, youth
should be off parole after a year
4. Instead of going through parole revocation
hearings alone, youth need to exercise their rights
Raise the Age Report
• Released in February 2013
▫ Before 2010, all 17-year-olds were in
the criminal adult system. Analyzes a
change that moved only some 17year-olds from adult to juvenile court
▫ Recommends treating 17-year-olds as
juveniles for ordinary offenses,
avoiding permanent felony records
and increasing fairness and public
safety
Summary of Findings
• Raising the age
▫ is consistent with legal trends
▫ is consistent with adolescent development and behavior
▫ is an efficient use of juvenile court resources
 improves public safety
 decreases long-term costs
• Raising the age for misdemeanors (2010)
▫ did not overwhelm the juvenile justice system
▫ created inconsistencies and uncertainty
• Raising the age for felonies (future)
▫ anticipated to be manageable
▫ will promote uniformity, clarity
▫ does not affect transfer for serious offenses
Support for a Community-Based
Approach for
System-Involved Youth
The Illinois Juvenile Justice Commission continues
to be responsive to opportunities to improve
Illinois’ juvenile justice system in policy and
practice by creating partnerships and
collaborating with decision makers, systems’
stakeholders, advocates and communities
impacted by the system.
Questions
For more information
• On Redeploy Illinois: contact Elizabeth Clarke, Juvenile Justice Initiative of
Illinois at bc@jjustice.org
• On Close to Home: contact Mark Ferrante, Senior Policy Advisor to the
NYC Commissioner of Probation at mferrante@probation.nyc.gov
• On the work of the Illinois Juvenile Justice Commission (IJJC): contact
Esther Franco-Payne at esther.franco-payne@cm2020.org
• On CJJ’s work and future webinars: contact Marie Williams at
williams@juvjustice.org
Thank you for participating!