1. Reducing Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Berks County, PA Coalition for Juvenile Justice May 4, 2009

2. Agenda  Background on Models for Change and DMC  Berks County’s data-driven approach  Community Collaboration  Detention Reduction  Placement Reduction  Where we’re headed

3. Models for Change  Initiative of the John D. and Catherine T. Macarthur Foundation  The goal is to create a new wave of juvenile justice reform by producing system-wide change in multiple states that others will learn from and emulate.  Four core states, PA, IL, LA and WA.  Three Action Networks have added 12 more partner states.

4. DMC Reduction Work Supported by Models for Change  8 counties and parishes in MfC core states  DMC Action Network  12 sites, expanding in four new states  Peer exchange of ideas and strategies  Work in Strategic Innovation Groups  Common data collection and reporting  Detailed Performance Measures

5. A C T I O N N E T W O R K S

6. DMC Reduction Goals 1) Reduce overrepresentation 2) Reduce racial and ethnic disparities 3) Prevent youth of color from unnecessarily entering and moving deeper into the juvenile justice system.

7. Work to reduce racial and ethnic disparities is not about:  A research project  Solving the problems of racism or poverty  The Blame Game – kids, parents, the community, music videos, television, the media, “the system”  “Gotcha” or finger pointing at public officials  The Abuse Excuse – poor, broken home, bad neighborhood, etc.  Holding youth of color less accountable

8. Why do racial and ethnic disparities occur? Structural inequalities and inequities in our society Differential offending rates Juvenile justice policies that are fair on their face but have unintended negative consequences Police responses to crime Location of offenses

9. Why do racial and ethnic disparities occur? (cont.) Conscious or unconscious use of racial/ethnic stereotypes Policy based on anecdote or “gut feeling” Inertia Failure to use data to drive decisions Failure to include all stakeholders in policy decisions

10. How do we reduce racial and ethnic disparities?  Develop oversight body of all stakeholders  Closely map juvenile justice process from first contact  Analyze data at all stages of the juvenile justice system  Identify gaps in the data and improve data availability and accuracy

11. How do we reduce racial and ethnic disparities? (cont.)  Identify specific decision points where racial or ethnic disparities exist or there is unnecessary youth contact with the juvenile justice system  Create interventions to reduce disparities or unnecessary involvement  Monitor implementation

12. Data-Driven Approach to Reducing Racial and Ethnic Disparities Engage Stakeholders in Governing Body Map Decision Points Gather Data: Quantitative & Qualitative Focus on Key Decision Points where Measurable Change Can Occur Fashion Remedies Implement Change Evaluate Whether Goals are Met

13. Models for Change Statewide DMC work in Pennsylvania  Collaborate with existing DMC Subcommittee of the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency and its local committees.  Statewide guidance for race and ethnicity data collection.  Work with Juvenile Court Judges’ Commission to improve cultural competence of service providers.

14. Berks County at a Glance  Total population: 401,149  Juvenile Population (ages 10 to 17): 43,844  Includes City of Reading  Berks County Latino population: 12%  Berks County African-American pop: 5%  Reading School District Latino enrollment: 73%  Reading School District Af-Am enrollment: 13%

15. Berks County Juvenile Justice at a Glance  Youth Referred to Juvenile Court 2008: 1192  Race and Ethnicity of Youth Referred 2008:  Hispanic/Latino 503 (42%)  White Non-Hisp.482 (40%)  Black Non-Hisp.192 (16%)  Other15 (1%)

16. Berks County Racial and Ethnic Disparities Reduction Project  Began project November 2005  Steering Committee first met Spring 2006  Qualitative and quantitative data collection  Data from available sources  File reviews for new information  Court and probation observations  Visits to schools, detention center and services  Interviews with wide range of stakeholders

17. Berks County Project, cont.  Active steering committee, under leadership of Judge Arthur Grim  Progressive leadership in Juvenile Probation  Stakeholders interested in and committed to reform  Formed task forces to address major areas of interest

18. Clergy Community Service Providers Community Activists Defense Attorneys Youth Judges Juvenile Probation Officers Parents Police Prosecutors School Systems Berks County Committee to Reduce Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Juvenile Justice

19. Early findings Detention  Recent loss of shelter beds  Lack of a continuum of alternatives to detention  No structured decision making tool for detention Education  Problems with post-placement reintegration of youth in school  Reading High School discipline forced many court-involved youth into non-engaging night school with short hours  Youth crime spike between 1 and 4

20. Early findings, cont. Workforce development  Need for more sheltered work and job mentoring opportunities Cultural Diversity and Language Capability of County Programs  No staff in public defender’s office fluent in Spanish  Some County agencies required individuals and families to bring their own interpreters in order to be served  Some gaps in service availability for Limited English Proficient youth and families Re-Entry  High recidivism for youth returning from placement – led to penetration of youth deeper into the system

21. Examples of New Data

22. Referred Offenses

23. Youth Detained, by Ethnicity

24. Detention  Developed Detention Assessment Instrument to guide probation officer decisions about detention.  Developed first pre-adjudication Evening Reporting Center in the Commonwealth.  The results: a 45% drop in Average Daily Population in detention.

25. Detention Assessment Instrument  Based on models from around the country  Refined and tested with consultant David Steinhart  Adjusted policy and practice based on his suggestions  Mandatory detentions for car theft contributed to overrepresentation of Latinos in detentions under DAI – policy eliminated.  Discretionary overrides were 40% of DAI detentions – staff hadn’t fully bought in.  First quarter 2009 discretionary overrides down to 14.5%.

26. Proportion of discretionary overrides by race and ethnicity compared with representation in the detention population – shows that discretionary decisions by POs were implemented without disparity

27. Bench Warrants  During Steinhart test period, 22% of youth detained under DAI were for bench warrants  Now bench warrants represent 12% of detained youth  Theory: better and more in-home services mean youth aren’t absconding from placement or home as much

28. Youth Detained under DAI * Mandatory overrides for absconds from home, failure to appear in court, detainers, firearms, placement failures, EM removal

29. Evening Reporting Center  Visited Chicago, Pittsburgh, Baltimore  Bids from two invited service providers  Opened doors late December 2008  Located in 19604, one of most represented zip codes  Bright, sunny former catering hall houses day treatment rest of the day; beautiful gym  Starter funding from MacArthur Foundation but state funding begins July 1, 2009

30. Preventing Net-Widening

31. Average Length of Stay in Detention

32. Average Daily Population in Detention

34. Detention Reductions  Have allowed us to:  Eliminate 24 of 72 detention beds  Enlarge PREP, a post-adjudication local residential program  More PREP beds mean youth can return from out-of-county placements sooner for re-entry  Re-establish shelter care

35. Comparison of Youth Scored and Youth Detained under DAI, by Race and Ethnicity, First Quarter 2009

36. Placement Reductions  Introduced MST August 2007  Program now has 6 therapists, 2 bilingual  Therapists each serve 6 kids at a time  Served 68 families so far  83% of MST clients who completed the program did not recidivate and avoided further incarceration

37. Importance of Philosophy  Commitment to reduce out of county placements.  Jeff must approve all placements.  Management reinforces community-based philosophy.  At current rate, placement in 2009 is on track for a drop of 42% since 2007.  Violators of probation represented 38% of placements in 2007, but now represent 30%.

38. Berks County Out of Home Placements of Committed Youth *2009 projections based on data available through April 27, 2009.

39. Placements by Race and Ethnicity *2009 projections based on data available through April 27, 2009.

40. Where Berks County is headed  Graduated sanctions for probation violators  Examination of MST referrals  Post-adjudication longer-term treatment ERC  YouthBuild  Work with Reading School District on Positive Behavioral Supports, closer examination of alternative schools and discipline

41. Jeff Gregro, Assistant Chief Berks County Juvenile Probation Office Phone: (610) 478-3200, ext. 6407 Email: jgregro@countyofberks.com Joseph Guillama, Site Coordinator Racial and Ethnic Disparities Reduction Project Phone: (610) 898-9688 Email: jguillama@hotmail.com Laurie Hague, Assistant Chief Berks County Juvenile Probation Office Phone: (610) 478-3200, ext. 6429 Email: lhague@countyofberks.com Dana Shoenberg, Senior Staff Attorney Center for Children’s Law and Policy Phone: (202) 637-0377 ext.107 Email: dshoenberg@cclp.orgjgregro@countyofberks.comjguillama@hotmail.comlhague@countyofberks.comdshoenberg@cclp.org Contact Us: