1 / 16

Juvenile Justice Reform and Reinvestment Initiatives in Other States

Explore the successful initiatives and outcomes of juvenile justice reform and reinvestment strategies in Ohio, Illinois, South Dakota, New York, and California.

fredjohnson
Télécharger la présentation

Juvenile Justice Reform and Reinvestment Initiatives in Other States

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. Other Reform and Reinvestment InitiativesAugust 27, 2019 Maine Juvenile Justice Task Force Meeting

  2. RECLAIM Ohio • Response to growing need for local alternatives and overcrowding in state juvenile facilities • Legislation enabling RECLAIM passed in 1993, pilot in 9 counties starting in 1994 • Jurisdictions are also allocated base Youth Services Grant, with amount based on population, and some get additional Targeted RECLAIM funding focused on EBPs for youth charged with felonies https://www.dys.ohio.gov/Community-Programs/RECLAIM/RECLAIM-Ohio

  3. Results

  4. Redeploy Illinois • Established in 2004 with bipartisan support to fund development of community-based services as alternatives to placement • Benchmarks in reductions in state placements for participating jurisdictions, with penalties for failure to achieve benchmarks http://www.redeployillinois.org/

  5. Redeploy Outcomes (2015) • The avg. per capita cost to serve a youth in Redeploy in 2015 was $5,502 (vs. $111,000 for placement in IDJJ) • Through 2014 (first 9 years), Redeploy diverted 1,793youth from IDJJ, saving more than$88 million in unnecessary incarceration costs • In a study of the original 4 Redeploy sites: • Return of $9.06 in benefits for every $1 invested • The pilot sites targeted and reduced Court Evaluation commitments by 87% • Youth in the original 4 pilot sites that successfully completed the program had a 27% lower recidivism rate compared to youth who did not successfully complete the program • 61% of the youth successfully completing the program were not incarcerated within the following 3 years compared to 34% of youth who did not successfully complete the program https://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=31991

  6. South Dakota: Comprehensive Reform Including Reinvestment Interbranch workgroup facilitated by Pew Charitable Trusts recommended comprehensive reform and reinvestment strategy, ultimately passed as SB 73 in 2015 Findings • Second highest commitment rate in the country • $144,000 per youth per year for state placements; • 50% of youth returned to a placement or other facility within 3 years https://bit.ly/33JXcNp

  7. South Dakota: Comprehensive Reform Including Reinvestment Component Key Provisions • Diversion presumptive response for many lower-level offenses and fiscal incentives to expand use of diversion • Restrictions on commitments • Performance-based contracting requirements • Length of stay requirements • Investment in community-based services, with initial $3 million to double with increased facility-based savings in future fiscal years https://bit.ly/33JXcNp

  8. New York’s Close to Home Initiative 32-member state-level Task Force on Transforming Juvenile Justice formed in 2008 Task Force Recommendations • Developing and using community-based alternatives to placement • Limiting institutional placement to a last resort • Replacing large institutional facilities with smaller programs that were rich with rehabilitative services and close to youth’s homes • Identify ways of supporting young people after they returned home https://bit.ly/2YYYdCx

  9. Core Principles of Close to Home

  10. Close to Home’s Key Provisions • Groundwork in NYC and within New York State to make reimagined continuum of services possible • Cost-sharing between New York City and New York State • Overarching Frameworks • Positive Youth Development • Risk-Needs-Responsivity • Community-Based Services • Alternative to placement • Non-Secure Placements • Limited Secure Placements

  11. Close to Home Results • ACS released 836 young people onto aftercare from 2014 to 2016. During that same time period, only 64 youth had their aftercare revoked for violations of terms of release, such as a new arrest • Nearly 80 percent of Close to Home sites reported a positive and consistent relationship with their local police precinct • Many Close to Home providers are implementing the pillars of the Missouri Model, a nationally recognized approach that is one of the most widely replicated in juvenile justice reform efforts in the U.S. • During the 2016- 2017 school year, youth earned an average of 9.3 credits and passed 91% of their classes, continuing year-over-year improvements in both areas • In 2016, 79% of youth in Close to Home placements successfully transitioned home to a parent or family member https://bit.ly/2YYYdCx

  12. Public Health Approach: California • In June 2019, Governor Newsom finalized plans to move the Department of Juvenile Justice from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation into California’s Health and Human Services Agency, renaming it the Department of Youth and Community Restoration • Support for alternatives to placement through Youth Reinvestment Grant funding • Additional $8 million budgeted for “Therapeutic Communities” pilot project (to replicate the Missouri Model) and $1.2 million to train current DJJ staff to support new mission https://bit.ly/2WFmveX

  13. King County, WA (Seattle): Road Map to Zero Youth Detention https://www.kingcounty.gov/depts/health/zero-youth-detention.aspx

  14. King County (Seattle) Zero Youth Detention Priorities • Lead: Lead with racial equity • Prevent: Prevent youth from entering the system by focusing upstream and on systems to have the greatest impact • Divert: Divert youth from further law enforcement, formal legal processes, and secure detention into community based options • Support: Support youth and families to reduce recurrence of legal system involvement and increase healthy outcomes • Align: Align and optimize connections between systems to increase effectiveness

  15. Reduced Criminalization: During the first two years of the program, Community Works West’s RCC program diverted 102 youth for crimes that would have otherwise been addressed through the juvenile justice system. • Lower Recidivism Rates: Participating youth were 44 percent less likely to recidivate, compared to similarly situated probation youth. impactjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/CWW_RJreport.pdf

  16. Lower Recidivism Rates: Participating youth were 44% less likely to recidivate, compared to similarly situated probation youth. • Cost Savings: RCC carries a one time cost of $4,500 per case, while probation in Alameda County costs $23,000 per youth per year. impactjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/CWW_RJreport.pdf

More Related