1. SCHOOL REFERRAL REDUCTION PROGRAM: Reducing Racial Disparities and the Criminalization of Low Risk Youth Center for Children’s Law & Policy Third Annual Meeting/DMC Action Network Washington DC May 15, 2009

2. THE PROBLEM

3. EFFECTS OF POLICE PRESENCE WITHOUT PROTOCOL Administrators abandon disciplinarian role Police become disciplinarians Police are taken away from collecting intelligence about serious crimes about to occur Increase in court dockets Widen the net for detention Increase in probation caseloads Criminalize kids for typical juvenile behavior Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC)

4. MISDEMEANORS VS. FELONIES: Before School Reduction Referral Protocol POLICE ON CAMPUS

5. STEP ONE The Role of the Judge: Bringing the Stakeholders Together

6. FIRST LAW OF MOTION Objects keep on doing what they are doing unless acted upon by an unbalanced force

7. JUDICIARY: FORCE FOR CHANGE JUDICIARY SOCIAL SERVICES SCHOOL SYSTEM MENTAL HEALTH DEPT. JUV. JUSTICE LAW ENFORCEMENT PROSECUTORS

8. GETTING THE STAKEHOLDERS TOGETHER Meet individually with School Superintendents and Chiefs of Police; Discuss the problem; Provide a one page outline of protocol objectives; Tell them that unilateral judicial edicts deprive community of their respective expertise in achieving favorable outcomes You need their HELP!

9. STEP TWO Discuss the Objectives

10. OBJECTIVES OF PROTOCOL Reduce misdemeanor school referrals to the juvenile court; Reduce probation caseloads that will increase supervision of high risk youth (the kids we are scared of); Give police more time to build rapport with students to gather intelligence on crimes about to occur; Overall, increase safety in the school and the community.

11. PROTOCOL EFFECT ON SCHOOL SAFETY INCREASES POLICE PRESENCE INCREASES INTELLIGENCE DECREASES WEAPON CASES INCREASES SCHOOL SAFETY DECREASE MINOR SCHOOL REFERRALS STEP ONESTEP TWO STEP THREE STEP FOUR STEP FIVE

12. PROTOCOL INCREASES POLICE INTELLIGENCE

13. PROTOCOL EFFECT ON COMMUNITY SAFETY DECREASE MISDEMEANOR SCHOOL REFERRALS INCREASE COMMUNITY SAFETY REDUCE RECIDIVISM INCREASE SURVEILLANCE OF HIGH RISK KIDS DECREASE PROBATION CASELOADS STEP ONESTEP TWO STEP THREE STEP FOUR STEP FIVE

14. STEP THREE Identify a Neutral Moderator to Limit the Role of the Judge

15. THE FIRST STAKEHOLDERS MEETING Judge makes introductions; Judge explains objective (to reduce referrals to the juvenile court); Judge role is limited to bringing the stakeholders together; Judge has no veto power except if what is proposed is illegal; Judge is equal participant with stakeholders; Judge introduces moderator who establishes ground rules and meeting times and places; Appoint a scribe; Judge or court administrator may present a draft proposal to get discussion going (optional).

16. STEP FOUR Negotiate Instrument

17. SCHOOL OFFENSE PROTOCOL AGREEMENT Focused Acts: Affray, DPS, DC, Obstruction First Offense/Warning Second Offense/Referral to Workshop Third Offense/Complaint Filed School Offense Agreement Signed by all Police Chiefs, School Superintendent, Juvenile Judges, DFCS Director, and other partners on July 8, 2004

18. STEP FIVE Collect Data & Conduct Periodic Reviews

19. QUALITY CONTROL: BRINGING INTEGRITY TO THE PROCESS Collect data; Measure the data; Is the protocol meeting the objectives; If not, what changes are required?; Publish results to stakeholders;

20. THE IMPACT OF THE PROTOCOL PROTOCOL SIGNED

21. MISDEMEANORS VS. FELONIES POLICE ON CAMPUS PROTOCOL SIGNED

22. RESIDUAL EFFECT: NON-FOCUS ACTS

23. DETENTION RATES ON SCHOOL REFERRALS

24. Impact of Protocol & Other JDAI Programs on Total Referrals

25. IMPACT OF PROTOCOL & OTHER EFFORTS ON ON DISPROPORTIONATE MINORITY CONTACT

26. QUESTIONS Steve.teske@co.clayton.ga.us