1 Juvenile Detention Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative: Detention & Equity Reform San Francisco Juvenile Probation Commission October 12, 2016 © Richard Ross

AECF/Juvenile Justice Strategy Group –Moving Towards Results JJSG Result: Children in the youth justice system remain with their families in safe communities and successfully transition to adulthood

 Why detention reform?  Core JDAI strategies  JDAI Results

The Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI) was conceived to address what had become a national crisis in the early 1990s Detention populations were climbing, with far too many youth in over-crowded facilities AVERAGE DAILY POP OF JUVENILES IN U.S. PUBLIC DETENTION CENTERS ( ) PERCENTAGE OF JUVENILES IN OVERCROWDED U.S. PUBLIC DETENTION CENTERS ( ) But, JDAI was also created as an entry- point strategy for deeper system reform U.S. ADJUDICATION & PLACEMENT RATES: DETAINED YOUTH VS. NOT DETAINED YOUTH Detained youth are more than twice as likely to be adjudicated and placed. Nationally, this has changed little over time

Sticker Shock: Sources: Justice Policy Institute “Sticker Shock” (2014) Harvard’s Website: Confinement CBO Harvard Cost of incarceration in California: $ – $208,338 per year

One-Day Counts in Detention Facilities, 2001 By Offense Category Property, Drugs, Public Order and “Other” (38.6%) (32.3%) (29.1%) Violent Offenses Status Offenses and Technical Violations

Arrests for serious crimes do not explain detention use; local policies and practices are key INDEX ARRESTS PER 100K YOUTH Index arrests have declined by 50% … (with half the decrease occurring before 2000) DETENTIONS PER 100K YOUTH …but detention has only declined by 31% (with half the decrease occurring after 2007) NOTE: Index arrests are classified as more serious crimes including murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft, and arson. Juvenile arrest figures based on annual count of arrests from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report (UCR) system; detention figures based on a one-day count through the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP). SOURCES: Puzzanchera, C., Adams, B., and Kang, W. (2012), "Easy Access to FBI Arrest Statistics “ ; Sickmund, M., Sladky, T.J., Kang, W., & Puzzanchera, C. (2011). "Easy Access to the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement.“ ; Federal Bureau of Investigation (2011). “Crime in the United States 2010”, table Puzzanchera, C., Sladky, A. and Kang, W. (2012). "Easy Access to Juvenile Populations: “

Youth of color are an increasing share of the total detained population Youth of Color as a Percentage of Total U.S. Detained Population SOURCE: Sickmund, M., Sladky, T.J., Kang, W., & Puzzanchera, C. (2011). "Easy Access to the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement.“

 Why detention reform?  Core JDAI strategies  JDAI Results-racial & ethnic disparities

JDAI uses eight interconnected strategies to enable jurisdictions to safely reduce reliance on secure detention Collaboration Use of accurate data Objective admissions criteria and instruments Alternative to detention Case processing reforms Reducing the use of secure confinement for ‘special’ cases Deliberate commitment to reducing racial disparities Improving conditions of confinement To demonstrate that jurisdictions can establish more effective and efficient systems to accomplish the purposes of juvenile detention. PURPOSE: 1) Eliminate inappropriate or unnecessary use of secure detention 2) Minimize failures to appear and incidence of delinquent behavior 3) Redirect public finances to successful reform strategies 4) Improve conditions in secure detention facilities 5) Reduce racial and ethnic disparities OBJECTIVES: CORE STRATEGIES:

 Why detention reform?  Core JDAI strategies  JDAI Results-Racial & Ethnic Disparities

3,173 fewer youth are being held in secure detention on an average day as compared to the grantees’ baseline years As of 2012, JDAI sites had reduced detention populations by 43% Change in Average Daily Population (ADP) by Grantee Baseline vs N=38 grantees, comprising 112 sites (Grantees shown in ascending order by percentage change in ADP)

14 JDAI sites as a group have led the nation in decreasing the use of detention – but like the rest of the JJ system, they struggle with persistent and large racial/ethnic disparities. Down 40%Down 43%Down 42%

Santa Cruz County, CA Turning Challenges Into Results Days23 Days -15% ADP16.6 ADP -50%

Ventura Co, CA: Average Daily Population

Introduction of JDAI DMC Reduction Agenda 66% Reduction in felony petitions filed from 2000 – % Reduction in state commitments from % Reduction in felony petitions filed from 2000 – % Reduction in state commitments from

Source: Sadaya-Ibus, Maria, Department of the Attorney General Hawai`i: Impact on Youth of Color

Ramsey County, MN Detention Admissions (JDAI Impact over 10 Year Period) 78% reduction (overall) 69% reduction (YOC) 72% reduction (Black youth) =================== ===== Between 2005 (pre-JDAI) and 2015, Ramsey County saw 1391 fewer admissions for Black youth. Rate of Admission for Black youth went from (per 100) to 5.79 (per 100)

San Francisco Youth Population Source: OJJDP Easy Access Youth of color were 76% of the population in 2010 and 72% of the population in 2015

San Francisco: Average Daily Population

Sedgwick County Results Sedgwick County Juvenile Arrests (Theft < $1000) 22

Towards Child Well Being 23  Define what this means in this context  Product/Outcome  Better Detention Utilization  Changes in Policies and Practices  Overall Numbers Reduction  Sustained Reduction in Contact with Justice system for Youth of Color  Well Being for Youth of Color/Improved Life Outcomes

W. Haywood Burns Institute 24 James Bell, Founder & Executive Director Raquel Mariscal, Director of JDAI W. Haywood Burns Institute for Youth Justice Fairness and Equity