State and county partnerships for jj reform

1. State and county partnerships for jj reform One State’s Fiscal Realignment Strategy to Shift Limited Resources to Community Intervention Elizabeth E. Clarke, J.D. Founder & President, Juvenile Justice Initiative of Illinois, USA www.jjustice.org James McCarter, J.D. Presented at Nebraska Summit December 6, 2012

2. Shift to Use Incarceration as Last Resort • Legislators and policymakers increasingly aware: • That U.S. incarcerates at five times the rate of next closest nation • That incarceration is too expensive to use except as a last resort – and a pressing need to realign limited state resources to community based alternatives • That incarceration – especially of low level offenders – is a failed policy

3. States rapidly closing/downsizing • Washington DC saved $18.5 million between ’05-’09 by closing Oak Hill, a 188 bed facility, and created a 60 bed facility in a therapeutic and homelike environment with full educational services. • Kansas saved $1.4 million by closing one 66 bed facility for girls, Beloit Juvenile Correctional Facility. The overall juvenile correctional population has now declined by 19% from 410 in 2007 to 332 in 2010. • Indiana saved $4 million annually by closing the N.E. Indiana Juvenile Correctional Facility. • Alabama shifted $2.4 million to community-based programs by decreasing commitments by 55% (from 1,084in ‘07 down to 490).

4. And….. • Arizona saved $2.5 million by closing a facility and decreasing its juvenile correctional population from 600 in ’08 to 400 by ’12. • Arkansas decreased commitments by 20% from ’08-’11. • Connecticut saved $3 million, which was reinvested in programming, by closing a 94 bed facility at New Haven. • Florida saved $130 million by decreasing the number of beds from 6,012 in 2006 to 3,455 in 2011. • Georgia saved $26 million by closing four facilities and downsizing another youth facility.

5. And….. • Missouri saved a half a million annually by closing six juvenile detention facilities. • Ohio saved $57 million by closing four juvenile prisons and downsizing the remaining facilities. The state reinvested the savings in community based programming through Reclaim Ohio and other community alternatives. • South Carolina reduced its youth incarceration population by 71% over the past decade and transferred corrections staff to community program offices. • Wisconsin closed two facilities by reducing its juvenile incarceration by 70% over the past decade. • Illinois reduced its juvenile incarceration by half over the past decade, and is in the process of closing two juvenile prisons, and has already closed one juvenile detention center – all while shifting some state resources to community alternatives through Redeploy Illinois.

6. And….. • And the big three: • California decreased the number of youth in confinement by 89%, down from 9,572 in 1996 to 1,082 at end of 2011, and shifted resources to local counties. • Texas closed five facilities and reduced its population from 4,800 in 2006 to 1,798 in 2010, saving the state $115 million. Nearly forty percent of the savings was reinvested in diversion funding in juvenile probation departments. • New York downsized/closed 31 facilities since 2007, recognizing a $58 million savings. Some of the savings is now being realigned to New York City to manage its youth population closer to home, as part of the Close to Home Initiative.

7. Many factors at play in move to reduce reliance on incarceration: • Fiscal considerations • Research documenting that incarceration is the least effective disposition • Awareness through conditions lawsuits of abuses and lack of services/education in juvenile facilities • Advocacy and education by by human rights advocates • Media attention to failed policies and inadequate conditions • Public opinion polling documenting public support for community alternatives rather than incarceration • Increasing awareness that U.S. stands alone in its heavy reliance on incarceration

8. Push from fiscal priorities • Recession in U.S. has caused states to reconsider costly incarceration policies. • Annual cost of bed in juvenile prison in Illinois ranges from $75,000 – over $200,000 depending on facility and number of beds. • Costs go deeper than per bed annual costs – pension benefits for prison guards who are state employees threaten state solvency for decades to come. • Costs of conditions lawsuits (California, Ohio, Texas, Illinois, Arizona) also a factor in fiscal considerations. • A handful of communities benefit from prison jobs, while all communities need alternatives and interventions.

9. Push from research on what works • Government and private foundations have invested in research to document the impact of community based alternatives to incarceration. • Evidence based alternatives have proved effective: • MST – multi-systemic therapy andFFT – functional family therapy – work with families to overcome issues that led to behavior in conflict with law • Treatment fidelity is vital • Clinical trials demonstrate reduced short and long term rates of criminal offending • Cost benefit analysis demonstrates significant cost savings compared to incarceration $2.5 savings : $1 spent http://www.jsna.info/download/get/mst-and-fft-evidence-review/15.html

10. Pathways to Desistance • Longitudinal research project, studying 1,354 serious juvenile offenders from age 14-18 over more than 7 years • Funded in part by MacArthur Foundation’s Models for Change Initiative • Findings based on both self-reports and arrest and court records • Youth in conflict with law over range of offenses from violent, including murder, to relatively minor property and drug offenses • Findings document the relative ineffectiveness of longer juvenile incarcerations in reducing juvenile recidivism. • Findings conclude most effective – community based substance abuse treatment • https://ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/230971.pdf

11. Push from leadership • Missouri’s Dept. of Youth Services hailed as national model • Child welfare therapeutic approach • Limited use of locked facilities with range of alternative placements including group homes and day treatment • Individualized case planning with counselor following case from beginning to end • Emphasis on pathway to success for positive youth outcome – extensive educational and vocational programs and activities • Criminal records expunged at point of discharge

12. Push from conditions lawsuits • Horrific conditions of confinement have forced prison closures/downsizing and reforms in many states, including: • California – officials traveled to Missouri and concluded the conditions in California youth prisons were beyond reform – most have now been closed and savings shifted to community alternatives. • Texas – a bi-partisan legislature passed a massive reform bill that included prohibition on incarceration of misdemeanor offenders and significant reforms. Several facilities have been closed and savings shifted to community alternatives. • Ohio – a bi-partisan legislature passed a massive reform bill that included prohibition on incarceration of low level offenders and a shift of savings from prison closings to community alternatives. • And now Illinois – two lawsuits, one over inadequate conditions in juvenile prisons (inadequate education and mental health programming and excessive discipline practices), and another lawsuit over lack of due process in parole (discharge) process.

13. Push from Advocacy • Particularly concerns over disparate use of incarceration for minority youth. • Nationally, African American youth under age 18 represent 15% of the juvenile population, but make up: • 26% of juvenile arrests• 31% of referrals to juvenile court• 44% of the detained population• 34% of youth formally processed by juvenile court • 46% of youth sent to adult court• 32% of youth adjudicated delinquent• 40% of youth in residential placement• 58% of youth in state adult prisons www.ojjdp.gov/dmc

14. Shifting fiscal priorities – Reinvestment Models Many states are moving to shift savings from juvenile prison closings into community based alternatives, and to develop fiscal incentives to utilize less restrictive community based alternatives in lieu of incarcerations: • Redeploy IL – gives local communities (counties) funding with requirement that must reduce commitments by 25% or pay funding back. • Reclaim Ohio – block grant to local communities to choose to use for community alternatives or commitments. • Youth Aids Wisconsin and Pennsylvania – counties responsible for funding of juvenile incarceration.

15. The Problem in Illinois - • Confinement Expensive • $70,000 and up/yr/bed • Confinement Ineffective • Over 50% repeat offending rate

16. The Problem – • Overreliance on Confinement due to lack of local alternatives • Nearly 30% of juvenile correctional population committed for court ordered mental health evaluation (“bring-back” orders) • 10%-12% of the youth correctional population comprised “court evals” • Fiscal structure encour-aged committing youth to state-funded corrections rather than finding a local (county) solution; if a youth is sent to the state, it costs the county less, when community-based alternatives are lacking

17. Research • The Illinois Department of Corrections documented overreliance on corrections for youth…..particularly youth committed for “evaluation” • Research documented success of alternatives to detention in IL. – particularly evening reporting centers • Research documented success of evidence -based programming – i.e. Multi-Systemic Therapy, Family Functional Therapy

18. Developing a Consensus for Change • Early on (mid-1990s), RECLAIM Ohio emerged as an interesting model for y0uth corrections reform in Illinois • 2003 – JJ reformers host series of discussions with key stakeholders in government, service, university, and advocacy sectors; Illinois legislators involved • Public education & coalition building -- regional public opinion polls, legislative hearings, regional summits

19. 2004 Redeploy Illinois Legislation • Provided that there be local responsibility and authority for planning, organizing, and coordinating services • Selected Illinois Department of Human Services as the lead/coordinating state agency • Set up pilot phase to develop Redeploy Illinois in a handful of counties / circuits • Set up benchmark (25% reduction in youth incarceration) with “penalty” for failure to reduce juvenile commitments • Applied only to youth charged with non-violent offenses • Encouraged use of evidence-based programs • Required evaluation • Required report of outcomes to Legislature annually

20. Purpose • To encourage the deinstitutionalization of juvenile offenders by establishing projects in counties or groups of counties that reallocate State funds from juvenile correctional confinement to local jurisdictions, which will establish a continuum of local, community-based sanctions and treatment alternatives for juvenile offenders who would be incarcerated if those local services and sanctions did not exist.

21. Principles • Restorative justice • Youth should be treated in least restrictive manner • Continuum of services and sanctions in communities; local options • Local responsibility • Public safety/accountability • Program accountability

22. Legislature added funding • Altho the theory was that eventually the reduction in corrections commitments would support expanded community-based programming, some funding had to be provided to “prime the pump” • In the fall of 2004, the Legislature added $2 million dollars to support the pilot phase of Redeploy Illinois

23. Implementation • Redeploy Oversight Board: Judges, Prosecutors, Probation, County, State agency representatives from child welfare and corrections, youth advocacy organizations, researchers • Application Process: • Series of public hearings to solicit input from community leaders on Redeploy Illinois - this community input was integrated into RFP process • Public hearings all held in sites of pilot DMC communities • Applications: • Hesitation of counties to apply due to the possible implementation of penalties

24. First Year Results • 4 pilot sites: 3 counties & one judicial circuit (which included 12 counties) • Overall a 33 percent reduction in juvenile commitments to state corrections; no evidence of significant increase in local detention utilization

25. Second Year Results • 44% reduction in commitments

26. Redeploy in operation today • Original 4 sites expanded to 8 sites covering 28 counties • Planning grants initiated – requirement that site must conduct a planning grant assessment prior to submitting proposal • Active involvement of Oversight Board • Tech assistance provided via “All Sites”mtngs • Youth incarceration reductions continue to exceed 25%....with a 51% reduction over baseline in Redeploy sites since 2006. • All sites use a common assessment tool (YASI) • All sites use evidence-based programming • All sites have increased local collaboration

27. EVALUATION • Annual review of Redeploy impact on commitments • Three-year program reviews by Oversight Board • Funding included to evaluate Redeploy pilots • Each site is evaluated several times • Annual report back to Legislature • Recidivism study underway

28. Early Analysis of Recidivsim • Federal funding supported a recidivism study. • Re-arrests reduced from 72.8 to 17.4%: Early analysis indicates that only 17.4% of youth who successfully completed Redeploy services were arrested on new charges during the period covered by the study, compared to 72.8% of justice-involved youth not in Redeploy in same counties. • Re-incarceration reduced from 57.4 to 14.2%: The rate of re-incarceration among Redeploy participants was 14.2% compared to 57.4% among non-participants. • Fewer arrests and re-incarcerations even if failed: Data even suggest that youth who do not successfully complete Redeploy services and are subsequently incarceration are less likely to reoffend.

29. Saving State Dollars • Since 2006, the Redeploy IL sites have reduced commitments to state juvenile prisons by 51%, committing 174 youth on average since 2006, compared with 356 youth eligible for Redeploy who would all have been incarcerated but for Redeploy services. • Cost avoidance of $9 million in FY10

30. Costs • State juvenile prison – over $70,000/yr • Redeploy Illinois – $2,600 to $10,000/yr

31. Program Accomplishments • In the first six years of implementation, the Redeploy Illinois sites, on average, reduced commitments to state juvenile prisons by 51% within their communities. • In six years of providing services, 882 youth were diverted from commitment to juvenile prison, saving the state tens of millions in incarceration costs. • Redeploy Illinois gave counties financial support to provide comprehensive services in their home communities to youth who might otherwise have been sent to juvenile prison.

32. Program accomplishments, cont’d. • Redeploy Illinois sites filled in the gaps in the local continuum of programs and services necessary for high-risk delinquent youth. This effort allowed counties to more cost-effectively serve youth locally and reduce their reliance on youth prisons. As a result, youth were given every opportunity to succeed in their own communities. • Redeploy Illinois received federal funding for FY11 to issue additional planning grants to eligible counties. Two more counties have stepped forward to begin the planning process to explore the potential to become a Redeploy site.

33. Conclusion • “Redeploy Illinois has clearly shown that community-based services for juvenile offenders are generally less costly and more effective than institutional care in correctional facilities”, IDHS Secretary Michelle Saddler • “Redeploy funding has increased the availability of community services for juveniles and their families; access to intensive treatment, substance abuse treatment, aggression interruption training and electronic monitoring allows me to ensure community protection without having to commit juveniles to IDJJ (youth prison)”, Judge Elizabeth Robb, McClean County, Illinois

34. Questions? • Thank you for your attention.