1 / 59

Judy Cox, Former Chief of Probation, Santa Cruz County October 21, 2008

Reducing Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the Juvenile Justice System: Moving Beyond Abstract Discussion to Strategic Response. Judy Cox, Former Chief of Probation, Santa Cruz County October 21, 2008. Current state of DMC. Youth of color are :

isaac-robinson
Télécharger la présentation

Judy Cox, Former Chief of Probation, Santa Cruz County October 21, 2008

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Reducing Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the Juvenile Justice System:Moving Beyond Abstract Discussion to Strategic Response Judy Cox, Former Chief of Probation, Santa Cruz County October 21, 2008

  2. Current state of DMC • Youth of color are: • Disproportionately represented in the juvenile justice system of every State. • Disproportionately represented in all stages of the juvenile justice system… and the rates of overrepresentation increase as youth go through the system. • More likely to be detained for low level offenses. • More likely to receive out of home placements. • More likely to be placed in adult jails.

  3. Overrepresentation of Youth of Color in Public Detention Centers: 1985 – 2006 1985 1995 White Youth White Youth Youth of color Youth of color White Youth 2006 Youth of color Source: Census of Public and Private Juvenile Detention, Correctional and Shelter Facilities, 1985-2006. 2/3 of Detainees are Kids of Color

  4. Sources: Snyder, H. (2006). Juvenile Arrests 2004. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics; (2007). "Easy Access to the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement." Available: http://ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/ezacjrp/;

  5. Why do Racial and Ethnic Disparities exist in the Juvenile Justice System?

  6. Why do Racial and Ethnic Disparities exist in the Juvenile Justice System? • The Facts: • Addressing DMC has been a Federal priority for two decades. • Data consistently indicates that disparities exist and that these disparities are not offense driven. • States prioritize reducing DMC as one of the most critical issues in juvenile justice today.

  7. State Juvenile Justice Priorities • States identified three topics as the most critical issues confronting their juvenile justice systems: • Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) (38 states). • Mental health assessment and treatment (30 states). • Detention reform (22 states). 2007 Federal Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice: Annual Report to the Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

  8. THE DISTRACTERS • Global Conversation • Blame Game • Culture of Politeness • Restatement of the Problem

  9. THE GLOBAL CONVERSATION • DMC is caused by: • Racism • Poverty • Levels of Criminality

  10. THE BLAME GAME It’s the fault of: the kids, the families, the community, the parents, society at large, music videos, television, the police, judges, the mayor, the governor, the President, racism, subtle discrimination, overt discrimination, the “system,” drugs, guns, poor education, inadequate housing, the schools, the kids, the families, the community, the parents, society at large, music videos…

  11. Process Truths Process is notNOT SEAMLESS • Agency mandates and agendas are inconsistent • Leadership Changes • Public Will Changes Process is not NOT EXPEDITIOUS • Values must be learned and embraced over time • Cultural shifts do not manifest immediately

  12. DMC Truths High rates of DMC of jurisdictions throughout the nation Juvenile justice systems have not been held accountable-- despite the federal legislative mandate to address DMC. Lack of awareness and/or interest among key decision makers about the problem. Restatement of the problem without identification of strategic response for reduction. Lack of knowledge among affected communities about how to address theproblem. States do not feel equipped with strategies to reduce disparities.

  13. State Responses to why there is a lack of reductions • Lack of Data or Lack of Access to Data • “We don’t have true RRI data because there is not enough data. We don’t have any data by race for any court decision points. The data doesn’t really inform what type of response we have because there hasn’t been an assessment of the data in quite a while.” • “There is no consistency in the collection of data and the numbers are so small that it is hard to get people to care about county-wide data. In one county we started using school data rather than census data because the population is shifting rapidly. There is a federal relocation center for immigrants, so the minority population is increasing fast there, but is not accounted for in the census data.” • In one State, one Judicial District is attempting to gain access to the data collected by the Judicial Administration Office, but has been denied access to the system.

  14. Moving Forward Towards a Strategic Response

  15. Moving Forward Towards a Strategic Response • Promising Federal Legislation: S. 3155 • Innovative Funding to Localities from SAGs: The California DMC-TAP Example • Establishing an Institutional Response at the Local Level: Strategies that Work.

  16. History of DMC in the JJDPA • 1974: Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) passes to put in place protections for youth involved in the JJS. • 1988: Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act has required states that receive formula grant program funding to determine whether the proportion of juvenile minorities in confinement exceeds their proportion of the population and, if so, to develop corrective strategies. • 1992: Congress elevated this issue to a “core requirement” of the JJDPA • 2002: OJJDP changed the requirement from reporting the proportion of minority juveniles in confinement to include the proportion of minorities at each key point of contact in the juvenile justice system. • 2007-2008: JJDPA up for reauthorization. Act4JJ advocating to strengthen requirement to include specific guidance to State and localities.

  17. Current DMC Language in JJDPA • “addressjuvenile delinquency prevention efforts and system improvement efforts designed to reduce, without establishing or requiring numerical standards or quotas, the disproportionate number of juvenile members of minority groupswho come into contact with the juvenile justice system.”

  18. Problem with Current DMC Language • No oversight of efforts • Vague requirement to “address” DMC • Lack of concrete direction for States • Lack of measurable objectives • Lack of guidance around data collection • No requirement to map critical decision making points • No mandate to learn causes of disparities • “Minority groups” distinction problematic • No mandate for tracking and publicly reporting efforts and progress

  19. S. 3155 • July 31, 2008: U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary marked-up and passed, by voice vote, S. 3155, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2008, • Bi-partisan legislation to reauthorize the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) • Originally co-sponsored by Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Ranking Member Arlen Specter (R-PA), and Senator Herb Kohl (D-WI).

  20. S. 3155 on Racial and Ethnic Disparities • ‘‘(15) implement policy, practice, and system improvement strategies at the State, territorial, local, and tribal levels, as applicable, to identify and reduce racial and ethnic disparities among youth who come into contact with the juvenile justice sys tem, without establishing or requiring numerical standards or quotas, by— • ‘‘(A) establishing coordinating bodies, composed of juvenile justice stakeholders at the State, local, or tribal levels, to oversee and monitor efforts by States, units of local government, and Indian tribes to reduce racial and ethnic disparities; • ‘‘(B) identifying and analyzing key decision pointsin State, local, or tribal juvenile justice systemsto determine which points create racial and ethnic disparitiesamong youth who come into contact with the juvenile justice system; • ‘‘(C) developing and implementing data collection and analysis systems to identify where racial and ethnic disparities exist in the juvenile justice system and to track and analyze such disparities; • ‘‘(D) developing and implementing a work planthat includes measurable objectivesfor policy, practice, or other system changes, based on the needs identified in the data collection and analysis under subparagraphs (B) and (C); and • ‘‘(E) publicly reporting, on an annual basis, the efforts made in accordance with subparagraphs (B), (C), and (D);’’

  21. Moving Forward Towards a Strategic Response • Promising Federal Legislation: S. 3155 • Innovative Funding to Localities from SAGs: The California DMC-TAP Example • Establishing an Institutional Response at the Local Level: Strategies that Work.

  22. California Enhanced DMC-TAP Funding • Total of $2.6 million for three year grant • Goal is to provide tools and resources needed to provide leadership in developing or strengthening DMC reduction activities • Five sites awarded • Each site receives $750,000, broken into three one year phases: • Infrastructure and education • Stakeholder involvement • Implementation

  23. Phase 1- DMC Infrastructure and Education Phase 1 Purpose: • Assist probation departments in establishing or strengthening the foundation for a DMC reduction effort. Phase 1 Grant funds are earmarked for: • Identified infrastructure needs within the department (e.g., DMC staff and/or resources needed to implement/improve data collection and analysis efforts) • Contracting with an expert consultant to conduct probation staff training sessions on DMC and to assist with data analysis.

  24. Phase 2 - Stakeholder Collaboration and Plan Development Phase 2 Purpose: • Support the education of stakeholders (e.g., police, judges, district attorneys, and public defenders) about the probation department’s DMC efforts and to engage stakeholders in the development of a long-term DMC reduction plan. Phase 2 Grant funds are earmarked for: • Contracting with an expert consultant to facilitate stakeholder collaboration and assist in developing DMC reduction strategies. • Continued support of DMC staff within the department.

  25. Phase 3 - Implementation of DMC Reduction Plan Phase 3 Purpose: • Support implementation of the DMC reduction plan developed in Phase 2. Phase 3 Grant funds are earmarked for: • specific activities outlined in the DMC reduction plan (e.g., development of risk assessment tools, provision of cultural awareness/competency training, implementation or expansion of prevention and/or diversion programs for at-risk youth). • Funds are also available for continued support of DMC staff.

  26. Organizing the DMC work: From Data to Action

  27. Moving Forward Towards a Strategic Response • Promising Federal Legislation: S. 3155 • Innovative Funding to Localities from SAGs: The California DMC-TAP Example • Establishing an Institutional Response at the Local Level: Strategies that Work.

  28. Is the Juvenile Justice System Just, fair and equitable? How Do we Know?

  29. Measuring DMC – Where to Begin Questions to ask yourself: • What are your goals? • What does success look like? • What is your process for data collection and analysis? Measuring DMC • Gather baseline data • Establish key DMC indicators to track over time • Collect, Analyze and Monitor

  30. Basic Data Measures Decision Points Measured by Federal Mandate • Population • Arrests • Referrals to Court • Diversions • Secure Detentions • Filings • Delinquency Findings • Probation Placements • Commitments • Adult Court • Average Daily Population • Alternatives to Detention • Referrals to Detention • Admissions to Detention • Risk Assessment Instrument Adherence • Average Length of Stay Additional Decision Making Points to Measure

  31. Operational Data Measures Studying procedures, policies, and programs through a racial lens • Compliance with Policies • Geographic • Efficiency and processing times • Success Rates • Access • Outcomes

  32. Examples of Operational Data:Studies in Santa Cruz • Length of Time in Custody Pending Placement • Bench Warrants / Probation Violations • Filings in Adult Court • Risk Assessment Instrument • Detention Alternatives Access / Success • Length of Stay in Custody / Court Processing Time • Completion / Success Rates in Post-Dispo Programs • Program design Studies (Evening Center)

  33. Strategy for Reducing Racial and Ethnic Disparities • Maintain ongoing system of data collection and analysis • Identify factors contributing to disproportionality • Dig deeper into factors contributing to disproportionality • Strategize about policy and practice change to reduce racial and ethnic disparities • Adopt strategy • Indicator to monitor effectiveness of each strategy in reducing racial disparities • Document changes in reducing racial disparities Ongoing process

  34. Identify Factors Contributing to DMC:Juvenile Detention Paths and Processes: Santa Cruz County, 2006 New Arrests 578 “Probation Failure” 273 Goal: Move these youth Juvenile Hall Bookings Detention Hearings Remain in Detention 851 455 312 53% 37% Sent Home 143 (17%) Sent Home Immediately: 182 (21%) Sent Home > 4 hours: 213 (25%) 147 without conditions 35 with conditions 160 without conditions 53 with conditions 69 without conditions 74 with conditions

  35. Identify Factors Contributing to DMC: Youth Held by Probation but Released by the Judge Sent Home 143 (17%) 69 without conditions 74 with conditions Held by Probation but released at Detention Hearing Youth Population Bookings Latino Anglo

  36. Strategy for Reducing Racial Disparities • Identify Factors contributing to disproportionality • Dig Deeper into Factors contributing to disproportionality: • Youth held by Probation and Released by the Judge. • Profile of Youth • Isolate areas where Probation has decision making authority to release youth • Strategize about Policy and Practice Change to reduce racial disparities • Adopt Strategy • Indicator to Monitor effectiveness of each strategy in reducing racial disparities • Document Changes in reducing racial disparities

  37. Digging Deeper into Youth Held by Probation but Released by the Judge • General Profile of Youth by R/E and… • Offenses • Gender • Geography • Number of Contacts • Probation Status • Override Status

  38. Identify Factors Contributing to DMC: Youth Held by Probation but Released by the Judge • Currently, Probation has little authority to release: • Youth with a High RAI Score • Youth for whom EMP is appropriate • Youth with “Special Detention” Status

  39. Strategy for Reducing Racial Disparities: Where Does Probation have Decision Making Authority? If we also delete the youth for whom EMP is appropriate and the high RAI scoring youth, we are down to only 41 youth. But… 66% of these youth (27 youth) are youth of color

  40. What did we learn about youth held by Probation and Released by the Judge in 2006? • Volume: The number of youth decreases significantly when controlling for RAI score; EMP holds; and policy holds. From 143 youth down to 41 youth. • But, there is still room for improved decision making: 41 youth impacted in 2006 – 66% were youth of color. • Geography: The highest proportion of youth were from 95076 • Probation Caseload: 61% of the youth were probation intakes; 39% were already on probation caseload • Discretion within Policy Holds: There may be room for improved Probation decision making with policy holds • 71% of policy holds were non-releasable bench warrants and 68% of these holds were youth of color. • The majority of bench warrants were FTAs. We need to investigate the number of FTAs that were on Probation and whether and why they were violated.

  41. Action • Policy/Practice Change: • Reinstituted Call Notification • Management Approval for overrides • Digging Deeper • RAI Research and Review • Probation Violation Research and Review • Bench Warrant Research and Review • Additional Research into Linguistic Barriers • Staff “Indicator” tracking

  42. Results • Results for Target Population (youth Held by Probation Released by Judge): • Population decreased by 20% • Failures to Appear decreased by 71% • (81% for Y.O.C.) • Probation Overrides decreased by 62% • (61% for Y.O.C.)

  43. Establishing an Institutional Response: Identifying Indicators and establishing a response You’ve got data… You know where disparities exist… You know where policy/practice change could impact the numbers… Now What?

  44. Uses for Data • Gathering as “Activity” for Reports • Gathering to fulfill a grant requirement • Research Related to Hypothesis • To Inform and Drive Department Policy that will Reduce Racial and Ethnic Disparities

  45. Developing an Institutional Response • Origins • Goals • Process Leadership/Vision of sustainability Need for sustained data collection and analysis DMC 101 Survey Results

  46. DMC 101 Survey Results Do you have a role in reducing racial and ethnic disparities? The higher level the Probation staff, the greater the perception that they have a role in reducing disparities.

  47. Developing an Institutional Response • Origins • Goals • Process Reduce Disparities Sustainability: Establish a departmental, institutional response to using data to reduce disparities Staff Buy in to Reform work: Infuse JDAI/BI principles into daily work and in a way that achieves staff buy in at all levels. Gain insight: Gain important insight from line staff regarding reasons for disparities and/or what to attribute progress in reducing disparities on ongoing basis

  48. Developing an Institutional Response • Origins • Goals • Process Identify Unit Indicators of Disproportionality Develop a strategic, institutional response to using data that engages line staff Develop database to capture Unit DMC Indicators Train, Process, Adapt, Train, Process, Adapt, Train, Process, Adapt, Train, Process, Adapt… Culture change Reductions in disparities

  49. Developing Institutional Response • DPO III’s review indicators on the intranet server noting trends and anomalies; • DPO IIIs and ADD review summary sheets at regularly scheduled monthly meeting with direct supervisor (ADD); • DPO IIIs and ADDs report out at regularly scheduled ADD/DPO III meeting held every 6 weeks regarding (strong focus on peer learning environment).

  50. General Supervision: North vs. South County PVs - Cumulative 12 % on caseload were violated 5.5 % on caseload were violated • Highlights • In North County, the Latino caseload has doubled, but the rate of probation violations has decreased. • In South County, the rate of Latino violations has decreased. • In General, the rate of probation violations for Latino youth is higher in North County. 11% 16% 10% 0% 11% 9% on caseload were violated 4% on caseload were violated 12% 6% 5% 9.5% 5%

More Related