1
Alameda County Probation Department
A Look into Probation Monthly Report
September 2012
Acting Chief LaDonna M. Harris Chief Probation Officer
400 Broadway Oakland, California 94607
510-268-7233
2
Executive Summary This statistical report provides a brief summary of trends for adults and juveniles who have received services from the Alameda County Probation Department (ACPD) in September 2012. The purpose of this report is to promote greater understanding of the breadth and depth of services provided by the department and a snapshot of the populations we serve. This report is produced bi-monthly. The next report will be for November 2012 and be available at the end of December 2012. This report was developed by the Alameda County Probation Department’s Data Analysis Research & Reporting Team (DARRT). We welcome your feedback. For questions or comments, please feel free to contact Carissa Pappas, Management Analyst at: [email protected]
Table of Contents Adult Services Figure Page Number Adult Probation Trends 1 3
Adult Offense Types 2 3
Gender and Race of Adult Clients 3 4
Adults on Probation by Location 4 4
Primary Service Needs 5 5
Re-Aligned Population PRCS Cases Received 6 6
PRCS Demographic Trends 7 6
PRCS Violation Types 8 7
Offense Types on Violations Filed for New Arrests of PRCS Clients 9 7
Juvenile Field Services Juvenile Probation Trends 10 8
Offense Types for Youth on Probation 11 8
Juveniles on Probation by Location 12 9
Juvenile Services-Referrals Referral Offense Types Yearly Comparison 13 10
Referral Offense Types 14 10
Source for Referrals 15 11
Juvenile Referral Decisions by Month 16 11
Gender and Race of Youth Referred to Probation Department 17 12
City of Residence for Youth Referred to Probation Department 18 12
Referrals by Race and Sex 19 13
Juvenile Facilities and Detention Alternatives Juvenile Hall/Secure Detention Trends 20 14
Juvenile Hall Admit Trends CY 2011 and 2012 21 14
Juvenile Hall Release Trends CY 2011 and 2012 22 15
Juvenile Hall Detaining Offense Trends 23 15
Juvenile Hall Detaining Offenses by Race and Sex 24 16
GPS Trends 25 17
GPS Admit Trends CY 2011 and 2012 26 17
GPS Release Trends CY 2011 and 2012 27 18
Home Supervision Trends 28 19
Home Supervision Admit Trends CY 2011 and 2012 29 19
Home Supervision Release Trends CY 2011 and 2012 30 20
Camp Sweeney Trends 31 21
Offense Types for Youth Ordered to Camp Sweeney 32 21
3
Adult Services- Probation September 2012
Figure 1
Demographics Start of
September
Cases Opened
in September
Cases Closed
in September
End of
September
Avg.
Years on Probation
# % # % # % # % #
Female 2,348 17% 29 15% 4 8% 2,373 17% 3 Years
Male 11,559 83% 159 85% 48 92% 11,670 83% 4 Years
Total 13,907 100% 188 100% 52 100% 14,043 100% 4 Years
Black 7,012 50% 96 51% 24 46% 7,084 50% 4 Years
Latino 2,875 21% 41 22% 11 21% 2,905 21% 4 Years
White 2,859 21% 39 21% 13 25% 2,885 21% 3 Years
Asian 677 5% 7 4% 3 6% 681 5% 7.5 Years
Other 484 4% 5 3% 1 2% 488 4% <1 Year
Total 13,907 100% 188 100% 52 100% 14,043 100% 4 Years
Figure 1 displays an aggregate summary of the cases that were opened during September 2012 for adult clients. The table also displays the number of clients who are on probation at the start of the month and allows the reader to “drill down” and review the data by gender and race. On September 1st, 2012 there were 13,907 adults on probation. Throughout the month of September, there were 188 new cases opened and 52 adults released from probation. On September 30, 2012 there were 14,043 adults on probation. The average length of time on probation for adults was 4 years.
Figure 2
Offense Types for Adults on Probation September 2012
Property36%
Drug & Alcohol32%
Other Felony 13%
Persons13%
Traffic1%
Weapons 5%
Other Misdemeanors 1%
n = 14,095
Data Source: Data Analysis Research & Reporting Team (DARRT)
Figure 2 displays the offense type breakdown for the total adult client population in September 2012. Over 95% of adult clients supervised are convicted felons. The majority of clients are placed on probation for a property (36%) or drug (32%) offense, while only 13% of clients were placed on probation for offenses against persons and “Other Felony” offenses.
4
Figure 3
Gender and Race of Adult Probation Clients September 2012
Gender of Clients on Probation
Male 83%
Female17%
n = 14,095
Race of Clients on Probation
African-American
50%Latino 21%
White 21%
Asian 5%
Other 4%
n = 14,095
Data Source: Data Analysis Research & Reporting Team (DARRT)
Figure 3 displays an aggregate summary of demographic information for adult probation clients. Males account for 83% of the population, while females represent 17%. African-Americans make up half of the population, White clients account for 21% as do the Latino population. The remaining clients are Asian (4%) and “Other Races” (4%).
Figure 4
Adult Probation Clients by LocationSeptember 2012
Alameda 2%Berkeley 4%
Castro Valley 2%
Fremont 5%
Hayward 13%
Livermore 3%
Newark 2%
Oakland41%
Richmond 2%
San Francisco 2%
San Jose 1%
San Leandro 6%
San Lorenzo 1%
Union City 3%
Vallejo 1%
Other 12%
n = 14,095
Data Source: Data Analysis Research & Reporting Team (DARRT)
Figure 4 displays the locations where adults on probation reside. The majority of adult clients reside in Oakland (41%) and Hayward (13%). The “Other” category includes 12% of clients who reside in small communities that make up less than one percent each of the total for that group. Please note: Figure 3 displays some cities which are not in Alameda County. Per various court orders and mandates, Alameda County Probation Department maintains jurisdiction over some probationers that reside out-of-County.
5
Figure 5
Primary Service Needs Among Adult Probation Clients September 2012
Banked Population
Drug/Alcohol 52%
Employment 20%
Mental Health
6%
Residential Treatment
3%
Educational 7%
Anger Management
2%
Literacy <1%
None Identified
9%
Other 1%
n = 8,608
Formal Supervision
Drug/Alcohol
37%
Employment17%
Mental Health
8%
Residential Treatment
3%
Educational 7%
Anger Management
8%
Literacy<1%
None Identified
18%
Other 1%
n = 5,454
Data Source: Data Analysis Research & Reporting Team (DARRT)
During the investigation stage of the adult probation process, all adult probationers receive a brief screening for service needs. Figure 5 displays primary service needs for the Banked and Formal Supervision populations. Drug and alcohol service needs make up over half of the Banked populations’ primary needs and 37% for clients under formal supervision. Employment needs also rate high for each population, 20% and 17% respectively.
6
Re-Aligned Population September 2012
Figure 6
PRCS Cases Received from CDCR per MonthOctober 2011-September 2012
7286
143
93
63 59 5468
50
3243
36
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Oct
ober
20
11
Nov
embe
r 20
11
Dec
embe
r 20
11
Janu
ary
2012
Febr
uary
20
12
Mar
ch
2012
Apri
l 201
2
May
201
2
June
201
2
July
201
2
Augu
st
2012
Sept
embe
r 20
12
n = 799 cases received ytd(625 currently active)
Data Source: Data Analysis Research & Reporting Team (DARRT)/Adult Services
Between October 2011 and September 2012, 799 Post-Release Community Supervision (PRCS) clients were released from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to Alameda County Probation Department for supervision services after the passage of AB109. Figure 6 shows the number of cases received per month. In September 2012, there were 625 active cases and the remaining 174 cases were either closed or transferred to another jurisdiction.
Figure 7
Gender and Race of Active PRCS ClientsOctober 2011 – September 2012
Gender of PRCS Population
Male 92%
Female 8%
n = 625
Race of PRCS Population
African-American
61%
Latino 19%
White 15%
Asian2% Other
4%
n = 625
Data Source: Data Analysis Research & Reporting Team (DARRT)/Adult Services
The majority of PRCS clients released from CDCR to date are African-American males and overall, people of color account for 86% of all PRCS clients. Females make up less than 10% of the total population, while males make up over 90%.
7
Figure 8
Percent of Violation Types for PRCS Clients October 2011 – September 2012
AWOL 28%
New Arrests 38%
No Shows 32%
New Arrest/No Show 3%
n = 250
Data Source: Data Analysis Research & Reporting Team (DARRT)/Adult Services
As Figure 8 shows, there have been 250 violations filed on PRCS clients in Alameda County since October 2011. Out of all violations filed, the majority (38%) have been for new arrests. 32% of violations have been filed for no show status which means the client never reported to their first meeting with ACPD upon release from CDCR custody. Almost 30% of violations were filed for AWOL which means the client stopped reporting to the ACPD sometime after their first meeting. The remaining 3% of clients who had violations filed were for a combination of a new arrest and a no show.
Figure 9
Percent of Offense Types for New Arrest Violations Filed on the PRCS Population October 2011 – September 2012
Property24%
Drug/Alcohol26%Person
19%
Weapons 6%
Other 6%
Public18%
n = 99
Data Source: Data Analysis Research & Reporting Team (DARRT)/Adult Services
There have been 99 violations filed on PRCS clients for new arrests since October 2011. Figure 9 shows the percent of offense types represented by the new arrests. Most new arrest violations were for drug/alcohol arrests (26%), property offenses (24%), and offenses against persons (19%). Offenses against the public made up 18% of new arrest violations, while weapons offenses accounted for 6%. Arrests in the “Other” category made up the remaining 6% of offense types. The majority of “Other” arrests were for misdemeanor offenses.
8
Juvenile Field Services- Probation September 2012
Figure 10
Demographics Start of
September
Cases Opened
in September
Cases Closed
in September
End of
September
Avg. Years on
Probation
# % # % # % # % #
Female 349 18% 11 19% 12 17% 348 18% 1.1 Years
Male 1,600 82% 47 81% 59 83% 1,588 82% 1.4 Years
Total 1,949 100% 58 100% 71 100% 1,936 100% 1.3 Years
Black 1,095 56% 31 53% 37 52% 1,089 56% 1.4 Years
Latino 521 27% 16 28% 20 28% 517 27% 1.4 Years
White 184 9% 6 10% 10 14% 180 9% 9 Months
Asian 92 5% 2 3% 3 4% 91 5% 2.2 Years
Other 57 3% 3 5% 1 1% 59 3% 8 Months
Total 1,949 100% 58 100% 71 100% 1,936 100% 1.3 Years
Figure 10 displays an aggregate summary of the cases that were opened in September 2012 for juvenile probationers. The table also displays the number of youth who were on juvenile probation at the start of September 2012, as well as the average length of stay for those whose cases have closed. The table allows the reader to “drill down” and review the data broken down by gender and race. On September 1, 2012 there were 1,949 youth on juvenile probation. Throughout the month of September, there were 58 youth newly placed on probation and 71 youth whose cases were closed from probation. The average length of stay for youth on juvenile probation was 1.3 years. *Average length of stay is only calculated for those cases that closed during the month.
Figure 11
Offense Types for Youth on Probation September 2012
Property31%
Other5%
Persons24%
Drugs5%
Status2%
Public5%
Weapons 8%
Fail to Obey Court Order
19%
n = 2,007
Data Source: Data Analysis Research & Reporting Team (DARRT)
Figure 11 displays the offense type breakdown for the total juvenile client population in September 2012. The majority of clients were placed on probation for a property (31%) or person offenses (24%), while 19% of clients were placed on probation for failing to obey a court order. The remaining juveniles were placed on probation for weapons offenses (8%), drug offenses and offenses against the public (5%) and status offenses (2%).
9
Figure 12
Juvenile Probation Clients by LocationSeptember 2012
Alameda 3%
Berkeley 4%
Castro Valley 2%Dublin 1%
Fremont 6%
Hayward14%
Livermore4%
Newark 3%
Oakland45%
Pleasanton 1%
San Leandro 7%
San Lorenzo 2%
Union City 3%
Other 5%
n = 2,007
Data Source: Data Analysis Research & Reporting Team (DARRT)
Figure 12 displays the locations where juveniles on probation in Alameda County live. The majority of youth reside in Oakland (45%) and Hayward (14%). The remaining 36% of youth reside in a variety of communities throughout Alameda County. The “Other” category includes 5% of clients who reside in small communities that make up less than one percent each of the total for that group.
10
Juvenile Services- Referrals September 2012
Figure 13
Juvenile Referrals by Month 2011 and 2012
443
401
552
452
587
488
430
389
455
344 351328
409429
347 341319
202
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Jan
uar
y
Feb
ruar
y
Mar
ch
Ap
ril
May
Jun
e
July
Au
gust
Sep
tem
ber
2011 2012
Overall, the number of referrals received year to date has declined 19% when compared to the same period in 2011 (from 3,796 to 3,070)
In 2012, the number of youth referred to the Probation Department has remained fairly stable over the year with exception of April and May when the number of referrals rose to 409 and 429 respectively.
In addition, the number of referrals dropped substantially in September to 202, a decrease of 37% between August and September 2012.
Data Source: Data Analysis Research & Reporting Team (DARRT)
Figure 14
Referral Offense Types July 2012
Other4%
Property 15%
Persons 25%
Public 6%
Drug & Alcohol 4%
Status2%
VOP8%
Warrant21%
Warrant & VOP10%
Weapons4% n = 202
Data Source: Data Analysis Research & Reporting Team (DARRT)
* The “Other” category include warrants and probation violations which make up the majority of referral types .
In September 2012, offenses against persons referrals composed the largest portion (25%) of juvenile referrals to ACPD. Referrals for warrants were the next largest category (21%), followed by property offenses (15%), and both a warrant and violation of probation (10%). Straight violations of probation accounted for 8% of all referrals, drug and alcohol and weapons offenses represented 4%, while the remaining referrals were made up of status offenses (2%) and “Other” offenses (4%). (Please refer to Figure 18 for a more detailed description of each offense type.)
11
Figure 15
Source for Referrals September 2012
Alameda PD 5%
Albany PD 1%Berkeley PD 4%
Probation Officers19%
Dublin PD 2%
Fremont PD 6%
Hayward PD 12%
Juvenile Court Judges 6%
Livermore PD 1%Newark PD
4%
Oakland PD14%
BART PD 2%
San Leandro PD 5%
School Attorney 2%
Self-report 2%
Sheriff 8%
Union City PD5%
Other 2%
n = 202
Data Source: Data Analysis Research & Reporting Team (DARRT)
Police and Sheriffs were responsible for approximately 76% of all referrals in September 2012. Deputy Probation Officers were responsible for 18% of referrals. The “Other” category includes 2% of small community police departments that make up less than one percent each of the total for that group.
Figure 16
Juvenile Referral Decisions by Month 2012
45% 42% 36%45% 42% 39%
51% 48%58%
55% 58% 64%55% 58% 61%
48% 52%42%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Jan
uar
y
Feb
ruar
y
Mar
ch
Ap
ril
May
Jun
e
July
Au
gust
Sep
tem
ber
Pe
rce
nt
of
Re
ferr
al D
eci
sio
ns
Book-Ins NTAs/Other
n = 351 n = 328 n = 409 n = 429 n = 347 n = 341 n = 319 n = 202n = 344
Data Source: Data Analysis Research & Reporting Team (DARRT)
In 2012, the number of youth referred to ACPD has remained fairly stable over the year with the exception of April and May when the number of referrals rose to 409 and 429 respectively. The number of referrals dropped substantially (37%) in September to 202, from August when 319 referrals were received. In addition, the percent of youth who were booked into Juvenile Hall after being referred to Probation was lower each month with the exception of July and September when overall referrals were lower. Youth who are not booked into Juvenile Hall are given a Notice to Appear (NTA) in Court and released.
12
Figure 17
Gender and Race of Youth Referred to Probation September 2012
Gender of Youth Referred to Probation
Male 83%
Female 17%
n = 202
Race of Youth Referred to Probation
African American
55%
Latino 26%
White 10%Asian
7%
Other 2%
n = 202
Data Source: Data Analysis Research & Reporting Team (DARRT)
Figure 16 displays an aggregate summary of demographic information for youth referred to probation. Males account for 83% of the population, while females represent 17%. African-Americans make up over half of the population, Latino clients account for 26%, while White clients make up 10% of the population. The remaining clients are Asian (7%) and “Other Races” (2%).
Figure 18
City of Residence for Youth Referred to Probation September 2012
Alameda 5%
Berkeley 3%Castro Valley 2%
Dublin 2%
Fremont 6%
Hayward18%
Livermore 3%
Newark 4%
Oakland36%
Richmond2%
San Leandro8%
San Lorenzo2%
Union City6% Other 3%
n = 202
Data Source: Data Analysis Research & Reporting Team (DARRT)
Figure 17 displays the locations where juveniles referred to probation in Alameda County live. The majority of youth reside in Oakland (36%) and Hayward (18%). The remaining 46% of youth reside in a variety of communities throughout Alameda County. The “Other” category includes 3% of clients who reside in small communities that make up less than one percent each of the total for that group.
13
Figure 19
Juvenile Referrals by Race and Sex September 2012 Persons Offenses All Youth Males Females White Afr-Amer Latino Asian Other
Robbery 25 23 2 1 16 4 1 3
Misdemeanor Assault 9 3 6 2 3 4 0 0
Felony Assault or Battery 8 6 2 2 3 2 1 0
Sex Offenses 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0
Rape 2 2 0 0 1 1 0 0
Carjacking 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 0
Threaten 2 2 0 1 1 0 0 0
Murder 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
Total Persons Referrals 51 41 10 6 25 13 4 3
% of Total Persons Referrals 100% 80% 20% 12% 49% 25% 8% 6%
Property Offenses
Burglary 17 17 0 1 9 5 2 0
Petty Theft 4 3 1 0 2 1 0 1
Receiving Stolen Property 4 4 0 1 2 1 0 0
Auto Theft 2 1 1 0 2 0 0 0
Grand Theft 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
Vandalism 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
Theft 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
Trespassing 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
Total Property Referrals 31 28 3 2 19 7 2 1
% of Total Property Referrals 100% 90% 10% 6% 61% 23% 6% 3%
Offenses Against the Public All Youth Males Females White Afr-Amer Latino Asian Other
Obstruction of Justice 9 7 2 1 5 3 0 0
Weapons Offenses 7 6 1 0 5 2 0 0
Prostitution 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
Disorderly Conduct 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
Gang Offenses 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0
Total Public Referrals 19 14 5 1 12 5 1 0
% of Total Public Referrals 100% 74% 26% 5% 63% 26% 5% 0%
Drug & Alcohol Offenses All Youth Males Females White Afr-Amer Latino Asian Other
Drug Distribution 6 4 2 0 1 3 2 0
Drug Possession 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0
Driving Under the Influence 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
Total Drug & Alcohol Referrals 9 6 3 2 2 3 2 0
% of Total Drug & Alcohol 100% 67% 33% 22% 22% 33% 22% 0%
Status Offenses All Youth Males Females White Afr-Amer Latino Asian Other
Truancy 4 2 2 0 1 3 0 0
Total Status Referrals 4 2 2 0 1 3 0 0
% of Total Status Referrals 100% 50% 50% 0% 25% 75% 0% 0%
“Other” Types of Referrals All Youth Males Females White Afr-Amer Latino Asian Other
Warrant & VOP Filed 21 18 3 2 12 6 1 0
Failure to Appear 19 17 2 0 15 2 2 0
Violation of Probation 17 13 4 5 6 5 1 0
Warrants-Placement Runaway 13 12 1 1 9 3 0 0
Warrants 6 5 1 0 3 2 1 0
Warrants-GPS Failure 4 4 0 0 2 2 0 0
Transfer to Another City 3 2 1 0 3 0 0 0
Other Offenses 3 3 0 1 1 1 0 0
Courtesy Hold 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
Warrants-Camp Sweeney 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
Total “Other” Referrals 88 76 12 9 53 21 5 0
% of Total “Other” Referrals 100% 86% 14% 10% 60% 24% 6% 0%
Total Referrals 202 167 35 20 112 52 14 4
% of Total Referrals 100% 83% 17% 10% 55% 26% 7% 2%
14
Juvenile Facilities and Alternatives to Detention September 2012
Juvenile Hall Figure 20
Demographics Start of
September Book-Ins for September
Releases in September
End of September
Avg. Length of
Stay
# % # % # % # % #
Female 26 13% 40 20% 43 20% 23 12% 15 Days
Male 173 87% 164 80% 169 80% 168 88% 26 Days
Total 199 100% 204 100% 212 100% 191 100% 24 Days
Black 131 66% 117 57% 124 58% 124 65% 26 Days
Latino 44 22% 50 25% 52 25% 42 22% 23 Days
White 16 8% 18 9% 20 9% 14 7% 18 Days
Asian 6 3% 12 6% 12 6% 6 3% 15 Days
Other 2 1% 7 3% 4 2% 5 3% 14 Days
Total 199 100% 204 100% 212 100% 191 100% 24 Days
Figure 19 displays an aggregate summary of youth who were admitted/released to secure detention in September 2012. The table also displays the number of youth who were detained at the start of the month, as well as the average length of stay. The table allows the reader to “drill down” and review the data broken down by gender and race. On September 1, 2012 there were 199 youth at Juvenile Hall. Throughout the month of September, there were 204 new admissions and 212 releases from the facility. On September 30, 2012 there were 191 youth at Juvenile Hall. The average length of stay for youth in the Hall was 24 days.
Figure 21
Book-InsNumber of Youth Admitted to Juvenile Hall
by Month Comparison of 2011 and 2012
270
228
314
277308 306
253 250
298
257 250 251265
251 250
335313
287
258 259
204
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Janu
ary
Febr
uary
Mar
ch
Apr
il
May
June July
Aug
ust
Sept
embe
r
Oct
ober
Nov
embe
r
Dec
embe
r
Num
ber o
f Yo
uth
Admits 2011 Admits 2012
Data Source: Data Analysis Research & Reporting Team (DARRT)
Figure 20 displays a summary of the number of youth who were admitted per month at Juvenile Hall during calendar year 2011 and 2012.
15
Figure 22
RELEASESNumber of Youth Released from Juvenile Hall
by Month Comparison of 2011 and 2012
247230
306
278
306315
246
277
252
284
218
259
281
258 257
291
332
276 275 276
212
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Janu
ary
Febr
uary
Mar
ch
Apr
il
May
June July
Aug
ust
Sept
embe
r
Oct
ober
Nov
embe
r
Dec
embe
r
Nu
mb
er o
f Yo
uth
Releases 2011 Releases 2012
Data Source: Data Analysis Research & Reporting Team (DARRT)
Figure 21 displays a summary of the number of youth who were released per month from Juvenile Hall during calendar year 2011 and 2012.
Figure 23
Detaining Offense Types for Youth at Juvenile HallSeptember 2012
Property19%
Persons33%
Drug 4%
Other 7%
Public2%
Violation of Probation
10%
Warrants & Violation of Probation
16%
Warrants5%
Weapons5%
n = 403
Data Source: Data Analysis Research & Reporting Team (DARRT)
The majority of juveniles held in the Alameda County Juvenile Hall were detained for offenses against persons (33%). Property offenses made up 19% of detaining offense types, followed by a combination of warrants and violations of probation (16%), while 10% of youth were detained for violations of probation only. The remaining youth were detained for weapons offenses (5%), warrants (5%), drug/alcohol offenses (4%), offenses against the public (2%), and “Other” offenses (7%). (Please refer to Figure 23 for a more detailed description of each offense type.)
16
Figure 24
Most Serious Detaining Offense for all Youth at Juvenile Hall by Race and Sex September 2012
Persons Offenses All Youth Males Females White Afr-Amer Latino Asian Other
Robbery 61 55 6 3 44 11 1 2
Felony Assault or Battery 41 24 17 6 17 16 2 0
Murder 8 8 0 0 6 2 0 0
Sex Offenses 5 5 0 0 1 1 1 2
Carjacking 5 5 0 0 2 0 3 0
Threaten 4 4 0 1 2 1 0 0
Rape 4 4 0 0 3 1 0 0
Kidnapping 3 3 0 0 2 1 0 0
Hit & Run Death 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
Total Persons Referrals 132 109 23 10 78 33 7 4
% of Total Persons Referrals 100% 83% 17% 8% 59% 25% 5% 3%
Property Offenses All Youth Males Females White Afr-Amer Latino Asian Other
Burglary 38 35 3 3 26 7 2 0
Auto Theft 21 18 3 1 13 7 0 0
Receiving Stolen Property 5 5 0 2 2 1 0 0
Grand Theft 4 2 2 0 3 0 1 0
Vandalism 4 3 1 1 3 0 0 0
Petty Theft 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
Theft 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
Possession of Burglary Tools 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
Total Property Referrals 75 66 9 7 49 16 3 0
% of Total Property Referrals 100% 88% 12% 9% 65% 21% 4% 0%
Offenses Against the Public All Youth Males Females White Afr-Amer Latino Asian Other
Weapons Offenses 19 18 1 1 13 3 2 0
Obstruction of Justice 5 4 1 0 3 2 0 0
Prostitution 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 0
Gang Offenses 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
Disorderly Conduct 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
Total Public Referrals 29 23 6 1 20 6 2 0
% of Total Public Referrals 100% 79% 21% 3% 69% 21% 7% 0%
Drug & Alcohol Offenses All Youth Males Females White Afr-Amer Latino Asian Other
Drug Distribution 11 10 1 1 4 3 1 2
Drug Possession 3 3 0 2 1 0 0 0
Driving while Intoxicated 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Total Drug & Alcohol Referrals 15 14 1 3 5 3 1 3
% of Total Drug & Alcohol 100% 93% 7% 20% 33% 20% 7% 20%
“Other” Types of Referrals All Youth Males Females White Afr-Amer Latino Asian Other
Warrant & VOP Filed 63 55 8 6 33 21 3 0
Violation of Probation 41 33 8 6 25 7 1 2
Transfer to Another City 25 21 4 0 20 4 1 0
Warrants-GPS Failure 5 1 4 0 5 0 0 0
Warrants- Home Supervision Failure 4 3 1 0 3 1 0 0
Warrants-Camp Sweeney 4 4 0 0 3 1 0 0
Warrants-Placement Runaway 3 3 0 1 1 1 0 0
Warrants-Failure to Appear 3 1 2 0 3 0 0 0
Courtesy Hold 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
Accessory 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
Escape 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
Violation of a Protective Order 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
Total “Other” Referrals 152 125 27 13 96 36 5 2
% of Total “Other” Referrals 100% 82% 18% 9% 63% 24% 3% 1%
Total Referrals 403 337 66 34 248 94 18 9
% of Total Referrals 100% 84% 16% 8% 62% 23% 4% 2%
17
Juvenile Detention Alternatives September 2012 GPS Monitoring
Figure 25
Demographics Start of
September
Admits in
September
Releases in
September
End of
September
Avg. Length of
Stay
# % # % # % # % #
Female 31 17% 29 30% 18 20% 42 22% 36 Days
Male 154 83% 67 70% 70 80% 151 78% 50 Days
Total 185 100% 96 100% 88 100% 193 100% 47 Days
Black 108 58% 51 53% 59 67% 100 52% 50 Days
Latino 51 28% 27 28% 19 22% 59 31% 40 Days
White 15 8% 9 9% 5 6% 19 10% 45 Days
Asian 7 4% 5 5% 3 3% 11 6% 42 Days
Other 4 2% 4 4% 2 2% 4 2% 41 Days
Total 185 100% 96 100% 88 100% 193 100% 47 Days
Figure 24 displays an aggregate summary of youth who were admitted/released in the Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) detention alternative program in September 2012. The table also displays the number of youth who were in GPS at the start of the month, as well as the average length of stay for those who have closed out of the program. The table allows the reader to “drill down” and review the data broken down by gender and race. On September 1, 2012 there were 185 youth in the GPS program. Throughout the month of September, there were 96 youth newly placed in the program and 88 youth released from the program. The average length of stay for youth in the program was 47 days.
Figure 26
ADMISSIONSNumber of Youth Admitted to GPS Services
by Month Comparison of 2011 and 2012
8489
130
100 104
136
101106 106
131
111
122130
125134
144
172
136
122113
96
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Janu
ary
Febr
uary
Mar
ch
Apr
il
May
June July
Aug
ust
Sept
embe
r
Oct
ober
Nov
embe
r
Dec
embe
r
Num
ber o
f Yo
uth
Admits 2011 Admits 2012
Data Source: Data Analysis Research & Reporting Team (DARRT)
Figure 25 displays a summary of the number of youth who were admitted per month to the GPS program during calendar year 2011 and 2012.
18
Figure 27
RELEASESNumber of Youth Released from GPS Services
by Month Comparison of 2011 and 2012
10799
110 112 110102
114
122
109117
105 108
119123
137
123
160 158
113 113
88
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Janu
ary
Febr
uary
Mar
ch
Apr
il
May
June July
Aug
ust
Sept
embe
r
Oct
ober
Nov
embe
r
Dec
embe
r
Num
ber
of
You
th
Releases 2011 Releases 2012
Data Source: Data Analysis Research & Reporting Team (DARRT)
Figure 26 displays a summary of the number of youth who were released per month from the GPS program during calendar year 2011 and 2012.
19
Home Supervision Program Figure 28
Demographics Start of
September Admits in
September Releases in September
End of September
Avg. Length of
Stay
# % # % # % # % #
Female 14 26% 5 46% 10 53% 9 20% 49 Days
Male 40 74% 6 55% 9 47% 37 80% 41 Days
Total 54 100% 11 100% 19 100% 46 100% 45 Days
Black 34 63% 7 64% 11 58% 30 65% 43 Days
Latino 7 13% 2 18% 2 11% 7 15% 50 Days
White 10 19% 2 18% 5 26% 7 15% 42 Days
Asian 2 4% 0 --- 1 5% 1 2% 77 Days
Other 1 2% 0 --- 0 --- 1 2% ---
Total 5 100% 11 100% 19 100% 46 100% 45 Days
Figure 27 displays an aggregate summary of youth who were admitted/released in the Home Supervision (HS) detention alternative program in 2012. The table also displays the number of youth who were in HS at the start of September 2012, as well as the average length of stay. The table allows the reader to “drill down” and review the data broken down by gender and race. On September 1, 2012 there were 54 youth in the Home Supervision program. Throughout the month of September, there were 11 youth newly placed in the program and 19 youth released from the program. The average length of stay for youth in the program was 45 days.
Figure 29
ADMISSIONSNumber of Youth Admitted to Home Supervision Services by
Month Comparison of 2011 and 2012
18
2425
14
22
1718
19
17
23 2322
1817
13 14 13
23
2726
11
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Jan
uar
y
Feb
ruar
y
Mar
ch
Ap
ril
May
Jun
e
July
Au
gust
Sep
tem
ber
Oct
ob
er
No
vem
ber
Dec
emb
er
Nu
mb
er o
f Yo
uth
Admits 2011 Admits 2012
Data Source: Data Analysis Research & Reporting Team (DARRT)
Figure 28 displays a summary of the number of youth who were admitted per month to the HS program during calendar year 2011 and 2012.
20
Figure 30
RELEASESNumber of Youth Released from Home Supervision Services
by Month Comparison of 2011 and 2012
23
15
18
24 24
21
17 17
23
2120
23
14
21
15
1312
26
16 16
19
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Jan
uar
y
Feb
ruar
y
Mar
ch
Ap
ril
May
Jun
e
July
Au
gust
Sep
tem
ber
Oct
ob
er
No
vem
ber
Dec
emb
er
Nu
mb
er o
f Yo
uth
Releases 2011 Releases 2012
Data Source: Data Analysis Research & Reporting Team (DARRT)
Figure 29 displays a summary of the number of youth who were released per month from the HS program during calendar year 2011 and 2012.
21
Camp Sweeney September 2012
Figure 31
Demographics Start of
September
Admits in
September
Releases in
September
End of
September
# % # % # % # %
Male 40 100% 11 100% 7 100% 44 100%
Total 40 100% 11 100% 7 100% 44 100%
Black 25 63% 6 55% 3 43% 28 64%
Latino 13 33% 2 18% 4 57% 11 25%
White 1 2% 1 9% 0 --- 2 5%
Asian 1 2% 2 18% 0 --- 3 7%
Other 0 --- 0 --- 0 --- 0 ---
Total 40 100% 11 100% 7 100% 44 100%
Figure 30 displays an aggregate summary of youth who were admitted/released to Camp Sweeney in
September 2012. The table also displays the number of youth who were placed at the start of the month. The table allows the reader to “drill down” and review the data broken down by gender and race. On September 1, 2012 there were 40 youth at Camp Sweeney. Throughout the month of September, there were 11 new admissions and 7 releases from the facility. On September 30, 2012 there were 44 youth at Camp Sweeney.
Figure 32
Offense Types for Juveniles at Camp SweeneySeptember 2012
Property33%
Persons26%
Drug 4%
Other 4%
Public6%
Weapons 10%
Failure to Obey Court Order
18%
n = 51
Data Source: Data Analysis Research & Reporting Team (DARRT)
The majority of juveniles ordered to Camp Sweeney in September 2012, were adjudicated for property offenses (33%). Persons offenses made up the next largest category (26%), while 18% of youth were ordered to Camp Sweeney as a result of failing to obey a court order. The remaining youth were at Camp Sweeney for weapons offenses (10%), offenses against the public (6%), drug/alcohol offenses (4%) and “Other” offenses (4%).