Performance-based Standards (PbS) for Youth Correction and Detention Facilities:

1. Performance-based Standards (PbS) for Youth Correction and Detention Facilities: A System for Continuous Improvement NDTAC Webinar Thurs, July 21, 2005

2. PbS: Measuring performance to improve • Ned Loughran, Executive Director, Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators (CJCA) • CJCA • National non-profit organization dedicated to improvement of youth correctional services, incorporated in 1994 • Unites nation’s youth correctional CEOs to promote leadership for juvenile justice • Projects: New Directors Seminar, MacArthur Foundation Model Systems Project, OJJDP Mental Health Model • Committed to expanding the adoption of PbS as a best practice to improve conditions of confinement

3. Presentation Overview • How PbS was developed • The scope of PbS: Standards and Outcomes • How PbS works • Examples • www.pbstandards.org for more information

4. History of Juvenile Justice • First court 100 years ago • Goal to treat children differently from adults to recognize differences in development, capabilities • Pendulum swing: punishment, rehabilitation • Most recently: transfer laws, building new facilities • Influx of youths with mental health problems, rise in female offender population

5. The cycle of juvenile institutions • Since the opening of the first facility in 1846, the institution has been the program of choice for juvenile offenders • Institutions have cyclical lives: initial calm; overcrowding due to crackdown on crime; deterioration and violence; media event; government investigation; Blue Ribbon Commission; reforms and back to calm. • PbS is a cycle that breaks the cycle.

6. Before PbS We’ve counted facilities and youths: • Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement counts facilities and number of youths within the facilities annually • Most recent report: 2,980 facilities (1,197 public, 1,774 private, and 9 tribal facilities) that held 104,413 residents (82%) that met all the inclusion criteria for the census: • Younger than 21. • Charged with an offense or court-adjudicated for an offense. • In residential placement because of that offense.

7. We didn’t measure performance • What went on behind razor wire fences was ignored, unknown and largely avoided; public perception formed by press, horrific incident, “super predators” label • Existing standards and accreditation were: • Process and policy-based; didn’t measure performance • Pass / fail • Three-year cycle • Not about improvement • Data usually meant someone was about sue! • Recidivism not accurate measure of effectiveness

8. 1994 Conditions of Confinement Study • About 1,000 secure facilities and found “substantial and widespread deficiencies:” • High rates of youths and staff getting hurt • High rates of suicidal behavior • Few timely or professional health screenings • High levels of staff turnover • Adherence to existing standards did not mean “better” facility

9. 1995: PbS launched to address COC problems • OJJDP selected the Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators (CJCA) to direct and develop the project • Guiding principals – First key to sustaining success: • Set standards at highest level of performance, not minimums • Facilities should be places we’d feel comfortable sending our own children • Gradually transfer knowledge, skills and ownership of PbS from project to field • Field driven to be meaningful and useful: feedback • Start with all stakeholders, related agencies at the table • Create meaningful and user-friendly performance measures

10. Development Process • Inclusive, comprehensive and a loop for feedback • Advisory Board of representatives from 10 major organizations set the framework, goals and standards • Working group on each function area: Safety, Order, Security, Health/Mental Health, Programming, Justice, and Reintegration; comprised of experts, practitioners, researchers – developed outcome measures to indicate performance related to standards • Pilot, revise, field test – feedback loop

11. Struggle: Performance outcomes vs. process indicators • Difficult to avoid process creep • You are what you count • Count only what you report • Report everything back to users • Some things cannot be translated into numbers – you need people • Processes, policies are a foundation but do not demonstrate effectiveness • Outcomes are measures, outcomes don’t “measure” they are the consequence of activities

12. Performance outcomes - examples • Rates of injuries as indication of level of safety • Percentage of youths improving math and reading scores from pre-test to post-test indicating effectiveness of education program • Number of instances youths placed in isolation and average duration to describe behavior management system and sense of order • Interview youths and staff to ask about perception of safety reported as percentages who report fear describe quality of life for youths and staff

13. Keys to successful development of national standards and performance outcomes: • Include all major stakeholders from the beginning -Guiding principals established and adopted from the outset; keep advisors informed. • Listen to the users/ field – Build structure to collect continual feedback from field and use it to make revisions; when they see you’re listening, encouraged to adopt. • Take advantage of technology – Worth any early resistance, fear and training investment. • Provide in-person technical assistance as much as possible – PbS site consultants and two full-time staff answering calls, emails; no one implementing is alone, stuck • Work to meet needs of users/ field – not just drop standards on them and leave.

14. The innovation of PbS: • For the first time, staff, managers and directors know from data what is going on in facilities and how they perform compared with national standards and other facilities • PbS provides the facilities and agencies with a picture of their performance in the context of improvement, with: • Tools, easy-to-read bar graph reports to identify the good and not-so-good; • A roadmap of practices and ways to improve and • Monitoring over time to demonstrate accountability and effectiveness through changing performance outcomes

15. Project Elements • A set of seven goals and 27 standards to assess: • Safety • Order • Security • Health and mental health • Programming • Justice • Reintegration Performance toward meeting each standard is measured using one or more outcome measures, which are compared over time and to other participating facilities.

16. Example: Safety • Goal: To engage in management practices that promote the safety and well-being of staff and youths. • Standards: • Protect youth and staff from intentional and accidental injuries • Promote management practices and behavior that minimize harm resulting form the use of restraints, isolation and environmental risks; • Protect youth and staff from fear. • Outcome Measures: Number of injuries to youths; number of injuries to youths by other youths; incidents of suicidal behavior with and without injury by youths; percent of youths and staff reporting that they fear for their safety.

17. Outcome report: Injuries to youths by other youths Injuries over time per 100 youth- days: Facility high of 5 in October 2003; 3 in October 2004 All well below field average

18. Example: Order • Goal: To establish clear expectations of behavior and an accompanying system of accountability for youths and staff that promote mutual respect, self discipline and order. • Standards: • Maximize responsible behavior by youth and staff and conformance to facility rules; • Minimize the facility’s use of restrictive and coercive means of responding to disorder; • Maximize opportunities for youths to participate in activities and programs. • Outcome Measures: Incidents of youth misconduct; use of physical restraint; use of mechanical restraint; use of isolation or room confinement and; average duration of isolation or room confinement.

19. Outcome report: Physical restraint use Physical restraints over time per 100 youth- days: Facility high of 12 in October 2000; 2 in October 2004 All well below field average

20. Measuring performance • PbS outcome measures adhere to definition of performance outcomes as rates, frequencies, numbers that show change in status, occurrence or prevalence • PbS outcomes are measured twice a year to reflect change from one data collection period to the next • PbS reports performance to users in many ways: performance over time, in comparison to the field average of other participating facilities, performance on outcomes targeted for improvement and outcomes critical to safe and effective operations

21. Demonstrating performance: The PbS continuous improvement cycle:

22. Data Collection • Administrative Form • 1 per site, 46 questions • Incident Reports • All incident reports for data collection period • Youth Record • 30 random YR, 93 questions • Youth Climate Survey • 30 random youths, 38 questions • Staff Climate Survey • 30 random staff, 38 questions • Youth Exit Interview • All youths released since last data collection, 24 questions • Ongoing data entry PbS Sustained Improvement

23. Site Reports • Divided Between Areas: • Safety, Order, Security, Health/ Mental Health, Programming, Reintegration • Corrections: • 105 outcomes • Detention: • 59 outcomes • Field Averages PbS Sustained Improvement

24. Facility Improvement Plans • Components of a Sites FIP • FIP Status • Targeted Outcome Measures • What is the problem? • Action Steps • Progress Notes • Ongoing Review PbS Sustained Improvement

25. Level System

26. Critical Outcome Measures • 31 Outcome Measures distributed over areas of Safety Security, Order and Health and Mental Health • Deal with issues of staff and youth injuries, suicidal behavior, abuse, neglect, restraints, assaults, fear for safety, confinement, contraband, health and mental health screenings • Available as a report for each site

27. Example: Overuse of isolation in NJ • New juvenile agency based on adult model • New director looking to improve performance • PbS report gave him the data and information on what needs to be improved • Average time in isolation “off the page” • Decided to institute change, worked with unions, rewrote regulations, designed staff training • Outcome measure: average time spent in isolation • Changes over time: • 257 hours October 2002 to • 29.2 hours October 2004; working to eliminate

28. Order 9: Average Duration of ConfinementCorrections compared to Detention Field Average A Average duration of isolation, room confinement and SMU unit use per 100 youth-days

29. Order 9: Average Duration of ConfinementNew Jersey Training School Average duration of isolation, room confinement and SMU unit use per 100 youth-days Facility high of 100.9 hours in October 2002 October 2004 average 26.5 hours

30. Order 9: Average Duration of ConfinementNew Jersey Juvenile Medium Secure Facility Average duration of isolation, room confinement and SMU unit use per 100 youth-days Facility high of 257 hours in October 2002 October 2004 average 26.5 hours

31. Order 9: Average Duration of ConfinementNew Jersey Female Secure and Intake Facility Average duration of isolation, room confinement and SMU unit use per 100 youth-days Facility high of 61.9 hours in October 2002 October 2004 average 26.5 hours

32. PbS Website and email address www.pbstandards.org help@pbstandards.org