Community Solutions for Kids in Trouble

COMMUNITY SOLUTIONS FOR KIDS IN TROUBLE

Benet Magnuson, J.D.Policy Attorney

Texas Criminal Justice [email protected]

February 2007

73,239 youth referred to 168 county juvenile departments

52,225 youth detained in 58 secure county pre-adjudication detention facilities

21,008 youth disposed to probation

5,107 youth sent to 39 secure county post-adjudication facilities.

5,838 sent to non-secure placements

2,912 youth sent to 16 state secure

facilities218 yout

h certified

Texas Juvenile Justice System 2006

Deescalating the System• 2007

SB 103: No misdemeanants in TYC Grants X and U: community-based supervision 4 TYC facilities closed

• 2009 HB 3689: Reentry planning, family involvement Grant C: community-based diversion programs 2 TYC facilities closed

• 2011 SB 653: Merged TYC and TJPC into TJJD Grant C target commitment level dropped to 1,111/yr 3 TYC facilities closed, and Mart I & II consolidated

2006 2011

Referred: 73,239 55,145 Detained: 52,225 27,143Probation: 21,008 16,601Secure Post: 5,107 2,616Committed: 2,912 956(State Facilities) 16 6Certified: 218 173

73,239 youth referred to 168 county juvenile departments

52,225 youth detained in 58 secure county pre-adjudication detention facilities

21,008 youth disposed to probation

5,107 youth sent to 39 secure county post-adjudication facilities.

5,838 sent to non-secure placements

2,912 youth sent to 16 state secure

facilities218 yout

h certified

Texas Juvenile Justice System 2006

55,145 youth referred to 165 county juvenile departments

27,143 youth detained in 50 secure county pre-adjudication detention facilities

16,601 youth disposed to probation

2,616 youth sent to 33 secure county post-adjudication facilities.

2,436 sent to non-secure placements

956 youth sent to 6 state

secure facilities17

3 youth certified

Texas Juvenile Justice System 2011

Deescalating the System

SB 653 TJJD Goals:(1) … reduce the need for out-of-home placement(2) increase reliance on alternatives to placement and

commitment…(3) locate the facilities as geographically close as possible…(4) encourage regional cooperation …(5) enhance the continuity of care…(6) use secure facilities of a size that supports effective

youth rehabilitation and public safety

Questions on the Future of Reform

• Are we heading in the right direction?

• Do communities have sufficient capacity?

• Next steps?

TCJC Youth Justice Initiative

• Secure facilities visits in 10 counties– Interviews with staff and youth

• Interviews at 2 state secure facilities– 115 boys at Giddings– 50 girls at Ron Jackson

• Data from all 165 county departments• Review of policies from 13 counties• Funding survey of 73 county departments

Are we heading in the right direction?

• Safer for youth and staff• Access to family• Lower staff turnover• Less expensive• Legislative Mandate• Access to community resources

Survey at Giddings (boys) state facility

Survey at Ron Jackson (girls) state facility

Survey at Giddings (boys) state facility

Survey at Giddings (boys) state facility

Survey at Giddings (boys) state facility

Are we heading in the right direction?

• Safer for youth and staff• Access to family• Lower staff turnover• Less expensive• Legislative Mandate• Access to community resources

Survey at Giddings (boys) state facility

Survey at Ron Jackson (girls) state facility

February 2007

“The families often live very far away, and there are no political repercussions for failing to do their [TYC and local prosecutors’] jobs.”

Are we heading in the right direction?

• Safer for youth and staff• Access to family• Lower staff turnover• Less expensive• Legislative Mandate• Access to community resources

County vs State Turnover

• County (Bexar) 25% (2010) 21% (2011)

• State (TJJD) 30% (2010) 40% (2011)

Survey at Giddings (boys) state facility

Survey at Ron Jackson (girls) state facility

Survey at Giddings (boys) state facility

Survey at Ron Jackson (girls) state facility

Are we heading in the right direction?

• Safer for youth and staff• Access to family• Lower staff turnover• Less expensive• Legislative Mandate• Access to community resources

Cost per youth per day

• State Secure Facility: $367• County Post-Adjudication: $137• Community Intensive Supervision: $30• Community Supervision Services: $23

• Counties implementing best practices save millions more

Are we heading in the right direction?

• Safer for youth and staff• Access to family• Lower staff turnover• Less expensive• Legislative Mandate• Access to community resources

Legislative Mandate

SB 653 TJJD Goals:(1) … reduce the need for out-of-home placement(2) increase reliance on alternatives to placement and

commitment…(3) locate the facilities as geographically close as possible…(4) encourage regional cooperation …(5) enhance the continuity of care…(6) use secure facilities of a size that supports effective

youth rehabilitation and public safety

Are we heading in the right direction?

• Safer for youth and staff• Access to family• Lower staff turnover• Less expensive• Legislative Mandate• Access to community resources

Questions on the Future of Reform

• Are we heading in the right direction?

YES: Keep kids close to home and connected to community

• Do communities have sufficient capacity?

• Next steps?

Questions on the Future of Reform

• Are we heading in the right direction?

• Do communities have sufficient capacity?

• Next steps?

(Very) Insufficient Funding

Is current funding for county juvenile probation departments sufficient to implement best practices for reductions in juvenile crime and recidivism?

• Very insufficient: 11% • Insufficient: 64% • Sufficient: 25% •More than sufficient: 0%

Community PrioritiesPlease rank by need of increased funding at your department:

1. Mental Health Services

2. Community Alternatives to Detention

3. Family Involvement Programs

Mental Health and Trauma

• Texas ranks last in mental health funding

• 1/3 of probation youth have a diagnosed mental illness Only 1/4 of those diagnosed youth receive

mental health treatment

Mental Health and Trauma• 1/2 of referred youth report past traumatic experience

• 1/2 of girls at Ron Jackson: Probation did not help to deal with past trauma

• Trauma experience is the biggest predictor of increasingly severe placements for youth

• Wide variation in county responses to mental health

County Successes

• Coordination is Key

Texas Front End Diversion Initiative

Mobile Crisis Outreach Teams

• Bexar County Trauma-Informed Care

Need for more county trauma-informed programs

Survey at Ron Jackson (girls) state facility

Pre-adjudication Detention (2011)

• 16,700 youth spent more than 10 days• 11,000 for non-felony offenses

• 5,600 spent more than a month• 3,400 for non-felony offenses

• 600 spent over 100 days• 280 for non-felony offenses

• Average length of stay in detention: 14 days

Pre-adjudication Detention

• Texas law disfavors detention• It does not reduce recidivism for

most youth• It is 7 times as expensive as intensive

supervision• Varies widely from county to county

Average Days in Detention

1. Harris County: 29.25 days2. Hidalgo County: 29.19 days3. Fort Bend County: 28.21 days4. Bexar County:24.52 days5. Smith County:24.14 days6. Dallas County: 22.82 days…31. Tarrant County: 12.05 days…43. Williamson County: 10.18 days

County Successes

County Successes

Seclusions and Restraints

• In 2012 in county facilities: 6,173 physical restraints 36,820 seclusions (likely thousands >24hrs)

Especially problematic for traumatized youth or youth with disabilities

Injuries are very costly Policies and procedures vary widely from

county to county

County Successes

Chemical Restraints (Pepper Spray)

History of abuse: Ohio (2011) “Pepper spray was used in cases where youth

were handcuffed or locked securely in their rooms.” Louisiana (2010) “Inappropriate and dangerous use of

chemical agents…” Texas (2007) “…significant increase in the use of OC spray,

particularly for youth with mental illness or serious emotional disturbances.”

Mississippi (2003) “Staff, evidence shows, made liberal use of pepper spray - even spraying juveniles already in restraints.”

California (2001) “Excessively and without sufficient warning…”

Chemical Restraints (Pepper Spray)

• Use follows policy:

Used 216 times in one state facility in 2011

Used 0 times in all county facilities in 2011

• 2013?

Family Involvement

• Higher involvement lowers recidivism for youth and siblings

• Many county visitation policies allow only for the minimum required visitation opportunities (30 minutes every seven days)

County Successes

• Family Functional Therapy (FFT)

• Multi-Systemic Therapy (MST)

• Parenting with Love and Limits (PLL)

• Parent Project, Family Preservation, others

Questions on the Future of Reform• Are we heading in the right direction?

• Do communities have sufficient capacity?

Emerging best practices, but more funding needed

• Next steps?

Questions on the Future of Reform

• Are we heading in the right direction?

• Do communities have sufficient capacity?

• Next steps?

The ‘Adultification’ Trap

• Adult prisons are very dangerous for youth More sexual victimization Limited programming and oversight Development of anti-social behaviors Higher recidivism

• 173 TX youth were certified as adults in 2011

County Successes

“It’s not a question of being more effective, it’s a question of not allowing serious offenses to go unpunished. People have to be held accountable for their actions. . . Most of this is not a question of rehabilitation. Most of what we do is punishment.”– Hidalgo County District Attorney Rene Guerra

“I view the adult system as a punitive system and the juvenile system as a rehabilitative system… Certification is always a last option.”– Hidalgo County Judge Mario Ramirez

• 17 and older in TJJD are not more assaultive 17+ are 56% of TJJD population and 56% of assaults

• 17 and older in TJJD are less likely to recidivate 16% of 17+ re-incarcerated 1 year after release 33% of 10-16 re-incarcerated 1 year after release

• 17 and older in TJJD have specialized needs 84 receive high intensity mental health services 104 receive high intensity sex offender programs 130 in Capital and Serious Violent Offender program 263 in high intensity substance abuse programs

73,239 youth referred to 168 county juvenile departments

52,225 youth detained in 58 secure county pre-adjudication detention facilities

21,008 youth disposed to probation

5,107 youth sent to 39 secure county post-adjudication facilities.5,838 sent to non-secure placements

2,912 youth sent to 16 state secure facilities

218 youth certified

Texas Juvenile Justice System 2006

55,145 youth referred to 165 county juvenile departments

27,143 youth detained in 50 secure county pre-adjudication detention facilities

16,601 youth disposed to probation

2,616 youth sent to 33 secure county post-adjudication facilities.2,436 sent to non-secure placements

956 youth sent to 6 state secure facilities

173 youth certified

Texas Juvenile Justice System 2011

Texas Juvenile Justice System in 2014?

Youth rehabilitated in county juvenile justice programs

Youth placed in adult prisons

SB 653 (2011)Sec. 201.002. PURPOSES AND INTERPRETATION. This title shall be construed to have the following public purposes:

(1) creating a unified state juvenile justice agency that works in partnership with local county governments, the courts, and communities to promote public safety by providing a full continuum of effective supports and services to youth from initial contact through termination of supervision; and

(2) creating a juvenile justice system that produces positive outcomes for youth, families, and communities by:(A) assuring accountability, quality, consistency, and transparency through effective monitoring and the use of systemwide

performance measures;

(B) promoting the use of program and service designs and interventions proven to be most effective in rehabilitating youth;

(C) prioritizing the use of community-based or family-based programs and services for youth over the placement or commitment of youth to a secure facility;

(D) operating the state facilities to effectively house and rehabilitate the youthful offenders that cannot be safely served in another setting; and

(E) protecting and enhancing the cooperative agreements between state and local county governments.

Questions on the Future of Reform

• Are we heading in the right direction?• Do communities have sufficient capacity?• Next steps?

Increase funding for community programsExpand emerging best practices statewideExpand oversight of county facilitiesAvoid the ‘adultification’ trap

Benet Magnuson, J.D.Policy Attorney

Texas Criminal Justice [email protected]