1. Better Responses to Youth Status Offenses November 12, 2013
Photo by Richard Ross
MARIE WILLIAMS | Coalition for Juvenile Justice
ANNIE SALSICH | Vera Institute of Justice
TARA GRIESHOP-GOODWIN | Kentucky Youth Advocates
Photo: Jen Pagonis (_pidge)

2. Leads a national movement
State-based juvenile justice coalitions and organizations (43 members in 33 states)
Laws, policies and practices that are fair, equitable and developmentally appropriate for all children, youth and families
Photo: “Lift” by Moriza
Photo: Moriza

3. A nationwide coalition of State Advisory Groups (SAGs) and allies.
Dedicated to:
preventing children and youth from becoming involved in the courts and
upholding the highest standards of care when youth are charged with wrongdoing and enter the justice system. 
Photo: “Lift” by Moriza
Photo: Moriza

4. Our Speakers Marie Williams Annie Salsich Tara Grieshop-Goodwin
Acting Executive Director
Coalition for Juvenile Justice
Annie Salsich
Director, Center on Youth Justice
Vera Institute of Justice
Tara Grieshop-Goodwin
Chief Policy Officer
Kentucky Youth Advocates

5. More Harm Than Good: More Harm Than Good:
Developing National Standards to Address Needs of Youth Charged with Status Offenses
More Harm Than Good:
Developing National Standards to Address Needs of Youth Charged with Status Offenses

6. Why Status Offender Reform?
Major Goals
Support CJJ’s longtime formal position on prohibiting detention of status offenders
Advance in practice, the policy change we seek in JJDPA reauthorization
Promote optimal and evidence-based policies and practices across all states to limit court contact and prevent adjudication and detention of youth at risk of being charged as status offenders

7. Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders (DSO) Core Requirement of the JJDPA
One of the Original Core Requirements
Youth charged with status offenses (and youth who are alleged to be dependent, neglected or abused) shall not be placed in secure detention or correctional facilities.
Valid Court Order (VCO) Exception
Youth charged with status offenses who violate a valid court order may be held in a secure juvenile facility for the period allowable by state/local law. 7

8. Is the Valid Court Order Exception still used?
The nation is divided:
In all, 28 states and territories prohibit or choose not to use the VCO exception in practice. Of these, 14 have state laws citing prohibitions.
In 2008, 27 of 55 states recorded allowable uses of the VCO exception as part of their JJDPA compliance efforts.
Additionally:
Wyoming is the only state that does not participate in the JJDPA – appears to lock-up many status offenders.
Some non-VCO states are struggling with JJDPA compliance due to detentions of minors in possession of alcohol. 8

9. Is the Valid Court Order Exception still used?
Approx. 9,850 VCO-related detention orders are issued annually in the 27 jurisdictions.
Typically a few courts or jurisdictions are responsible for the VCO-related detention orders.
According to OJJDP data from , nearly 60% of all such VCOs occur in 3 states: Arkansas, Kentucky and Washington. 9

10. Nationwide Concern about Status Offender Detention
When detained, there are safety concerns:
Nearly 20% of status offenders are placed in living units with youth who have killed someone;
More than 25% reside with felony sex offenders;
Half participate in programming with youth who have been charged with murder and/or rape.
When detained, there are poor outcomes:
Re-offense rates increase;
School engagement and success are diminished;
Emotional, social, familial and other problems are exacerbated. 10

11. JJDPA Reauthorization Push to Improve Outcomes
Phase-out use of the VCO exception to the DSO core requirement;
Prohibit detention of children under the custody of child protection/child welfare agencies;
Place strict limits on lengths of stay in secure detention for all non-delinquent youth, including status offenders;
Provide funds to enrich the continuum of services for community based and/or family-connected care for status offenders. 11

12. Broad Consensus to Eliminate ALL Detention for Youth Charged with Status Offenses
OJJDP at the U.S. Department of Justice
U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee (x2 in legislation)
CJJ, NCJFCJ and more than 380 organizations, including:
The American Bar Association
American Probation and Parole Association
Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators
Fight Crime Invest in Kids
National PTA 12

13. National, State and Local Trends Support Deinstitutionalization
Preventing non-delinquent children from entering locked facilities where they are housed with more serious offenders;
Reducing out of home placements and incarceration of youth charged with delinquent offenses;
Reducing reliance on secure custody for the full range of juvenile offenders, with community supervision and case management approaches: therapeutic, educational and/or skill-building components;
Family and community-connected services/interventions produce the most positive outcomes for youth development and community safety. 13

14. States Leading the Charge to Avoid Detention
Recent efforts in VCO states – such as Alabama, Louisiana, Ohio, Utah and Washington – are cutting VCOs by 50% or more with practice changes and alternatives to detention.
Other states have enacted legislative changes to move status offenders away from the delinquency system, such as Connecticut, Georgia, New York and Pennsylvania. 14

15. Overview: The SOS Project
Three Core Strategies
Promote and support judicial leadership
Develop tools and information to support change
Identify, assess and/or develop model policy

16. Partners Public Welfare Foundation NCJFCJ and NCJJ
Vera Institute of Justice

17. Judicial Leadership Strategy
Identify and elevate examples of judicial leadership on the use of alternatives to court involvement and detention for youth with unmet needs who are charged with status offenses.
Provide peer-to-peer support opportunities for judges seeking alternatives to confinement.
Distill lessons from judicial leaders on DSO.

18. Profiled Examples of Judicial Leadership on DSO
Positive Power
Profiled Examples of Judicial Leadership on DSO
Focus on:
Demand for evidence-based approaches
Balancing of interests
Reliance on partnerships
Use of judicial convening power

19. Model Policy Strategy
Identify and develop state statutes that effectively divert youth and families from court and confinement and toward family- and community-based services.
Analyze, contextualize and measure the effectiveness of current state statutes in achieving the goals of DSO and producing optimal outcomes for youth, families and communities.

20. National Standards Development Process
Phase I - Convening expert advisory group in a consultative role to develop standards for practice.
Includes stakeholders from various points of contact with the JJ system, SAG members, representatives from schools, child welfare and law enforcement.
Phase II - Developing the standards for addressing the needs of youth charged with status offenses without court involvement.
Phase III – Comment and Dissemination to broaden and solidify buy-in and begin to promulgate the Standards in the field.

21. Promoting the Use and Sustainability of Standards
Goal #1
State level change in practice.
Goal #2
State level change in policy.
Goal #3
Ground-up support for federal restoration of the original DSO core requirement, i.e. elimination of the valid court order exception.

22. Overview of the National Standards
Introduction
Section I: Principles for Responding to
Status Offenses
Section II: Efforts to Avoid Court Involvement
Section III: Efforts to Limit Court Involvement
Section IV: Policy and Legislative Implementation
Section V: Definitions

23. Introduction to the National Standards
History of status offenses
Overview of recent understanding about status offenses as sometimes symptomatic of complex needs
History of DSO core requirement, the VCO and state response

24. Section I Principles for Responding to Status Offenses
12 key principles to which professionals can adhere to
protect youth and family well-being. The principles
acknowledge and address the individual, familial and
community contexts in which status offenses may
occur, and underlie all subsequent standards.

25. Section II Efforts to Avoid Court Involvement
Discusses key principles and practices to shape how education, social service, child welfare, runaway and homeless youth, mental/behavioral health, law enforcement and juvenile justice systems should first respond to youth and families at risk and in need of immediate assistance. It offers examples of early intervention services that will help the child and family avoid court involvement.

26. Section III Efforts to Limit Court Involvement
Focuses on judicial, legal and other professionals working within the court system, with guidance about how to use the court’s powers to ensure the proper services are implemented while avoiding deeper court involvement. Provides specific guidance at various stages of the case to ensure best outcomes for youth and families.

27. Section IV Legislative, Administrative and Budgetary Policies
Proposes legislative, administrative and budgetary principles and policies that relevant authorities can promote and adopt to reform their current status offense responder systems, and support implementation of the National Status Offense Standards proposed in previous sections.

28. Section V
Definitions
Common terms referred to in the Standards.

29. Beyond Courts to Communities: Better Ways of Responding to Status Offenses November 12, Annie Salsich Director Center on Youth Justice
Add photo from SORC.
September 21, 2018

30. Presentation Outline Why status offense reform
What system change looks like on the ground
How practitioners, policy makers, and advocates can access information, support, and guidance in this area

31. Why Status Offense Reform
In 2010, juvenile courts across the country processed 137,000 status offense cases.
In 36% of these cases, the most serious allegation was truancy – that’s nearly 50,000 kids taken to court for skipping school.
Despite the noncriminal nature of these behaviors, youth in approximately 10,400 cases spent time in detention.
In 6,100 cases the court disposition was a longer-term placement in a residential facility .  

32. Why Status Offense Reform
Courts often over-burdened
Lack of immediate and appropriate crisis response
High financial and social cost of the juvenile justice system, particularly for non-criminal behavior
More effective alternatives

33. What System Change Looks Like
A new paradigm has been emerging in many jurisdictions:
Connect struggling families with social services in their communities, instead of turning to courts.
The MacArthur Foundation supported and encouraged this shift in its Models for Change initiative.
Vera has provided technical assistance and research support to more than 30 jurisdictions across the country in this area since 2001.

34. What System Change Looks Like
Effective community-based systems feature the following:
Court diversion
Immediate response
A process to triage and diagnose
Services that are accessible and effective
Internal assessment

35. What System Change Looks Like
Three Examples from the Field:
Florida
Calcasieu Parish, LA
New York State

36. Florida Impetus for Change:
Growing recognition that courts and detention were inappropriate for serving runaways and other youth who had not committed crimes
Passage of Runaway Youth and Family Act in created a statewide task force to plan a new system
Goal:
To strengthen the continuum of services that would serve troubled teens and their families in their communities
Reform Champion:
Legislature has been a key champion in the reform movement

37. Florida (cont) Reforms:
Department of Juvenile Justice contracts with Florida Network of Youth and Family Services to oversee FINS/CINS programs
Youth/families can access immediate services from over 30 sites statewide
Strong emphasis on quality assurance and accountability
Outcomes:
91% of the 14,847 youth served from were crime free six months after services
A 2011 cost effective evaluation found that Florida Network early interventions saved the state $160 million

38. Calcasieu Parish, Lousiana
Impetus for Change:
Concern about the long length of time between referral and the development of a service plan for FINS youth
Goals:
To link youth and families to needed services in the community and facilitate immediate access to those services
Reform Champion:
Calcasieu’s Children and Youth Planning Board (CYPB) took the lead in planning the MARC
Engaged in a comprehensive planning process, which included reviewing FINS data, surveying youth and providers, and visiting model sites

39. Calcasieu Parish (cont)
Reforms:
Launched the Multi-Agency Resource Center (MARC), a central point of intake for FINS and delinquent youth
Emphasis on data tracking and review of case processing times
Outcomes:
In 2011 (first year of MARC operation), less than 1 percent of referrals resulted in a court petition
Time between intake and service plan development has dropped dramatically, from 50 days to 2 hours
Since 2006, no youth have been committed to the Office of Juvenile Justice on FINS charges

40. New York State Impetus for Change:
2001 increase in age of jurisdiction raised concern about increases in court cases and high costs associated with non-secure detention and placement and spurred a closer look at the system as a whole.
Goals:
To examine how localities were using the status offense system and find effective alternatives to juvenile justice involvement.
Reform Champion:
The New York State Office of Children and Family Services contracted with the Vera Institute to conduct a study and provide technical assistance to 23 counties over a 3-year period.

41. New York State (cont.) Reforms:
Localities across the state set out to (1) divert more PINS youth from the court system and into supportive services in the community and (2) develop community-based alternatives to non-secure detention and placement.
Legislative change in 2005 to further encourage the use of court alternatives.
Outcomes:
Between 2003 and 2012, the state saw a 70% decrease in PINS court petitions.

42. How to access guidance in this area
Vera’s on-line Status Offense Reform Center
Funded and supported by the MacArthur Foundation, as part of its National Resource Center Partnership.
Aims to help policymakers and practitioners create effective, community-based responses for keeping youth who commit status offenses out of the juvenile justice system and safely in their homes and communities.
Will go live in December –

43. Status Offense Reform Center
Toolkit
Step-by-step guide outlining how to undertake a status offense reform effort
Library
Central repository of information related to status offense behaviors, system responses, and reform efforts
SORC Products
Notes from the Field
Research Briefs
Other Features
Webinars
Podcasts/Videos
Blogs

44. Kentucky Progress on Status Offenses: Creating Environment for Reform
Tara Grieshop-Goodwin
Kentucky Youth Advocates

45. Youth locked up for status offenses
From 2nd to
4th highest
among
50 states
Data reported by Coalition for Juvenile Justice

46. Use of secure detention has dropped in recent years for status offenses
Data from Department of Juvenile Justice and Louisville Metro Youth Detention Services 

47. Strategies for creating change
Showing the numbers
Media work
The message

48. Publishing the numbers
Numbers of bookings by
county
Estimated cost by county

49. Media coverage

50. The message
Avoiding jargon
Public safety
Cost of secure detention
Offering a solution

51. Starting to see success
Family court rules of law
Local initiatives
Task Force developing recommendations

52. Questions?
Tara Grieshop-Goodwin Chief Policy Officer Kentucky Youth Advocates x118

53. Contact Info
Marie Williams
Acting Executive Director
Coalition for Juvenile Justice
, ext. 113
Annie Salsich, Director
Center for Youth Justice
Vera Institute of Justice
(212)
Tara Grieshop-Goodwin
Chief Policy Officer
Kentucky Youth Advocates
x118